Epps v. Federal Bureau of Prison
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 10/29/2018. Copy mailed to plaintiff. (tjoh, )
M
CLERK, us r
Pir,'. ,
HUGH ROYAL EPFS,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 3:17CV646-HEH
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Granting Rule 59(e) Relief and Reopening Action)
By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on April 19,2018(ECF No. 14), the
Court directed Plaintiffto file a particularized complaint because Plaintifffailed to
identify under what federal law he sought to bring his claims. After an extension.
Plaintiff filed a Particularized Complaint. However,this Particularized Complaint was
also deficient. Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on August 3,2018,the
Court directed Plaintiff, within fourteen(14)days ofthe date ofentry thereof, to file a
second particularized complaint that complied with certain directives. (ECF No. 19, at 13.) The Court wamed Plaintiff that the failure to submit the second particularized
complaint would result in the dismissal ofthe action. {Id. at 2.) Because more than
fourteen days elapsed after the entry ofthe August 3,2018 Memorandum Order, and
Plaintiff failed to submit a second particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the
August 3,2018 Memorandum Order, by Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on
August 31,2018, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice.
l£
OCT 30 2018
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
IL
-
"Tzn
On September 11, 2018, the Court received from Plaintiff a Motion for
Reconsideration(ECF No. 22), with a Second Particularized Complaint(ECF No.22-2)
attached. Because the motion was filed within twenty-eight(28) days ofthe Court's
entry ofthe August 31, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court construes the
motion as a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e)("Rule 59(e) Motion"). See MLC Auto., LLC v. Town ofSouthern Pines,
532 F.3d 269,277-78(4th Cir. 2008)(citing Dove v. CODESCO,569 F.2d 807,809(4th
Cir. 1978)).
"[RJeconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which
should be used sparingly." Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'I Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396,403
(4th Cir. 1998)(internal quotation marks omitted). The United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit has recognized three grounds for relief under Rule 59(e): "(1)to
accommodate an intervening change in controlling law;(2)to account for new evidence
not available at trial; or(3)to correct a clear error oflaw or prevent manifest injustice."
Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993)(citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. v.
Koppers Co., Ill F. Supp. 1406, 1419(D. Md. 1991)). Although the Court never
received the Second Particularized Complaint, Plaintiffswears that he placed his Second
Particularized Complaint in the prison mailing system on August 9,2018, well within the
fourteen days permitted by the August 3, 2018 Memorandum Order. (Rule 59(e) Mot. 1;
ECF No. 22-1, at 1.) Thus, Plaintiff appears to argue that the case should be reopened to
prevent manifest injustice. Because it is unclear what happened to Plaintiffs initial
submission of his Second Particularized Complaint,the Rule 59(e) Motion(EOF No. 22)
will be granted. The August 31,2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order will be vacated.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy ofthe Memorandum Opinion to Plaintiff.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/
DateA^ 2^^ tot?
Richmond, Vnginia
HENRY E.HUDSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?