Smith v. United States of America

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's 11 MOTION to Reconsider Judgment Order. Plaintiff's 12 AMENDED MOTION to Reconsider Judgment Order and all its various addenda (Docs. No. 13-16) are DENIED as well. The Clerk is directed to remove this case from the Court's active docket. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 9/30/2013. (cc: Plaintiff, Pro Se and counsel of record) (arb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD

RODNEY EUGENE SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No: 1:12-00900
(Criminal No. 1:01-00007-01)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is plaintiff Rodney Eugene Smith’s
“Void Judgment Requested Pursuant to the Writ of Error Coram
Nobis Based on New Evidence Previously Not Adjudicated.”
No. 11).

(Doc.

In that motion, Smith asks the court to reconsider its

Judgment Order of January 31, 2013, “and declare said case void
ab initio based on the false presumption that Rodney Eugene Smith
is a United States citizen.”

Plaintiff’s Motion at p. 1.

Plaintiff’s motion is but another in a long line of frivolous
filings seeking to set aside his 2001 criminal conviction in this
court.

By Order dated January 31, 2013, the court denied his

petition for a writ of error coram nobis.
As an initial matter, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
do not recognize a "motion to reconsider" per se.

Furthermore,

it is well recognized that Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure may not be used to re-litigate old matters or
raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised
before judgment.
n. 5 (2008).

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486,

As a reminder of the Fourth Circuit's pronouncement

of the policy behind Rule 59(e), it should be noted that granting
such motion “is an extraordinary remedy which should be used
sparingly.”

Bailes v. Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co., 3:09-CV-00146

(S.D.W. Va. Feb. 9, 2010)(citing Pacific Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at
403).

Rather, the Fourth Circuit has clearly identified three

circumstances under which a district court may alter or amend a
judgment 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 of law or
prevent manifest injustice.

Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins.

Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998).

After considering the

instant motion, it is clear that plaintiff is not entitled to
relief under Rule 59(e).
As with relief under Rule 59(e), relief under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 60 is not available for mere disagreement with
the court’s decision.

See Shelton v. Hayes, 197 F. App'x 469,

470 (7th Cir. 2006); cf. Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 989-90
(8th Cir. 1999)(“In their ‘motion for reconsideration,’

2

defendants did nothing more than re-argue, somewhat more fully,
the merits of their claim [. . .] This is not the purpose of Rule
60(b). It authorizes relief based on certain enumerated
circumstances (for example, fraud, changed conditions, and the
like). It is not a vehicle for simple re-argument on the
merits.”).
When “a motion is for reconsideration of legal issues
already addressed in an earlier ruling, the motion is not
authorized by Rule 60(b).”

CNF Constructors, Inc. v. Donohoe

Const. Co., 57 F.3d 395, 401 (4th Cir. 1995)(internal quotations
omitted).

Plaintiff’s motion clearly falls within this category,

thus making unwarranted the relief contemplated by Rule 60.
Putting aside the procedural problems with Smith’s motion,
it is equally clear that it is substantively without merit.
Plaintiff’s apparent basis for reconsideration is the “new
evidence” that, at his underlying criminal trial, the government
failed to prove that he was a United States citizen.

According

to Smith, he is outside the jurisdictional reach of the federal
courts and the laws of the United States because of this alleged
failure of proof.

Smith’s argument is akin to the “sovereign

citizen” argument that “has been rejected repeatedly by the

3

courts.”1

Nunn v. United States, Civil Action No. 3:13cv12-MHT,

2013 WL 1099321, *2 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 27, 2013); see also Presley
v. Prodan, C/A No. 3:12-2511-CMC-JDA, 2013 WL 1342465, *2 (D.S.C.
Mar. 11, 2013) (and authorities cited therein).

Furthermore,

there is nothing “new” about this so-called “evidence.”
Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion to reconsider is
DENIED2 and the Clerk is directed to remove this case from the
court’s active docket.
The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and plaintiff,
pro se.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 30th day of September, 2013.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

1

Plaintiff’s various filings subsequent to the instant motion
raise the same tired argument. See Docs. No. 12-16.
2
For the same reasons, plaintiff’s amended motion(s) and all its
various addenda are DENIED as well. (Docs. No. 12-16).
4