United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
ORDER AND OPINION
matter is before this court upon Plaintiff's pro
se Amended Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 47),
court's Order (ECF No. 43), entered on January 17, 2017,
dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1), without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process. For
the reasons discussed below, the court
DENIES Plaintiff's Amended Motion for
Reconsideration. (ECF No. 47.)
March 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against
Defendants. (ECF No. 1.) On June 27, 2014, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) recommending that the Complaint be
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service
of process. (ECF No. 25.) On January 19, 2016, this court
denied Plaintiff's Motion for Request for Legal
Assistance and for Reverse Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 36.) On
January 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Reconsideration regarding the Order on Motion for Request for
Legal Assistance and for Reverse Summary Judgment (ECF No.
38); that motion was denied on April 4, 2016. (ECF No. 41.)
On January 17, 2017, this court adopted the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 25), and
dismissed this action without prejudice and without issuance
and service of process. (ECF No. 43.) On January 30, 2017,
Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion for Reconsideration (ECF
No. 47), to the Order ruling on the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 43.)
LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS
is a pro se litigant and his complaint is afforded
liberal construction so as to give him an opportunity to have
a claim stated where his alleged facts would merit one.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2014) (per
curiam). A pro se complaint, regardless of how
inartfully pled, must be held to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 111 (1976).
be relieved of a judgment or order where the court either
makes a clerical error, oversight, or mistake, or where one
of the following occurred in court proceedings: “(1)
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2)
newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence,
could not have been discovered in time to move for a new
trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called
intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by
an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment
has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on
an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or
applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any
other reason that justifies relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60
Plaintiff states, “the Motions should be granted for
three reasons: (1) to follow an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) on account of new evidence; or (3) to
correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest
injustice.” (ECF No. 47.) Plaintiff has not shown that
there has been an intervening change in controlling law, new
evidence, a clear error of law or that he will suffer
manifest injustice as a result of the court's Order. (ECF
No. 36.) Plaintiff simply asserts that the United States is
improperly named as a party to the case and that requiring
Plaintiff to be represented by counsel is an additional
requirement that results in manifest injustice to Plaintiff
and future plaintiffs. (ECF No. 47.) Further, Plaintiff
argues that strict timeliness requirements of the False
Claimed Application of Base Load Review Act (FCA of BLRA) are
technicalities and prevent justice from being afforded. (ECF
Amended Motion for Reconsideration may also lie under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Rule 59 allows a party to seek
an alteration or amendment of a previous order of the court.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Under Rule 59(e), a court may
“alter or amend the judgment if the movant shows either
(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new
evidence that was not available at trial, or (3) that there
has been a clear error of law or a manifest injustice.”
Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407
(4th Cir. 2010); see also Collison v. Int'l Chem.
Workers Union, 34 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir. 1994). It is
the moving party's burden to establish one of these three
grounds in order to obtain relief. Loren Data Corp. v.
GXS, Inc., 501 F. App'x 275, 285 (4th Cir. 2012).
The decision whether to reconsider an order under Rule 59(e)
is within the sound discretion of the district court.
Hughes v. Bedsole, 48 F.3d 1376, 1382 (4th Cir.
1995). A motion to reconsider should not be used as a
“vehicle for rearguing the law, raising new arguments,
or petitioning a court to change its mind.” Lyles
v. Reynolds, C/A No. 4:14-1063-TMC, 2016 WL 1427324, at
*1 (D.S.C. Apr. 12, 2016) (citing Exxon Shipping Co. v.
Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008)).
Plaintiff does not demonstrate that there has been an
intervening change in the controlling law, or that a clear
error of law occurred, nor does he raise new evidence that
was not available at trial or that he will suffer a manifest
injustice as a result of the court's Order. (ECF No. 74.)
Therefore, Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Reconsideration
fails under the requirements of both Rules 59(e) and 60 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
on the aforementioned reasons, the court
DENIES Plaintiffs Amended Motion for
Reconsideration. (ECF No. 47.)
IS SO ORDERED.