United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
Bryan Harwell United States District Judge.
Alqi Dhimo, proceeding pro se, filed a Motion for
Reconsideration on August 9, 2017. [ECF #24]. Plaintiff
requests this Court reconsider its previous ruling in its
Order dated July 25, 2016, adopting the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge and dismissing Plaintiff's case without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process. [ECF
#21]. The Court now considers the Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration. All parties have had the opportunity to
respond, and this Court has thoroughly considered all the
filings in this case. This Court now issues the following
brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
the Horry County Solicitor's Office and Martin Spratlin,
the Solicitor of Horry County. [ECF #1]. Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants violated his rights by engaging in misconduct
related to criminal proceedings brought in 2014 and 2015.
This matter is before the Court to consider Plaintiff's
Motion for Reconsideration filed on August 19, 2017. [ECF
#24]. Within his Motion, Plaintiff argues that Horry County
Solicitor Mary-Ellen Walter is threatening his family and
seeking revenge against him for filing this federal lawsuit.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the solicitor is
threatening to re-open a state criminal case that he states
was previously dismissed, and Plaintiff states that he
believes these threats are about money and abuse of power.
[ECF #24, pp. 2-3]. Plaintiff also alleges within his Motion
that the named Defendant Martin Spratlin is no longer at the
solicitor's office, but that Ms. Walter is now
threatening him. [ECF #24, p. 3].
59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions
seeking to alter or amend a judgment. Motions to alter or
amend under Rule 59 are not to be made lightly. 12 James Wm.
Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 59.30
(3d ed.). The Fourth Circuit has held that such a motion
should be granted for one of 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. Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d
1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993). This Court entered its order and
judgment on July 25, 2016. Rule 59 also governs the time for
filing a motion to alter or amend a judgment. According to
Rule 59(e), the motion must be filed no later than 28 days
after entry of the judgment. Here, the Plaintiff has waited
well over a year before filing this Motion for
Reconsideration. Accordingly, under Rule 59, this Motion for
Reconsideration is time-barred.
Court has also considered whether Plaintiff has made a proper
showing under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which governs relief from a judgment or order.
Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
the court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order or
proceeding on one of the following grounds:
(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, misrepresentation,
or misconduct by the opposing party; (4) the judgment is
void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or
discharged; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Civ. P. 60(b). Further, Rule 60(c)(1) provides that the first
three listed reasons must be made no more than a year after
the entry of the judgment or order. As previously stated,
Plaintiff filed his motion more than a year after entry of
the order and judgment. Under Rule 60(c)(1), the other listed
reasons must be made within a “reasonable time.”
Assuming that this motion was filed within a reasonable time,
this Court's review of the motion does not provide a
basis for finding that the judgment was void, has been
satisfied, or otherwise makes a showing that would justify
relief. Accordingly, because Plaintiff has not provided a
basis for relief under either Rule 59 or Rule 60, this Court
denies the Motion for Reconsideration.
Court has thoroughly reviewed the entire record, including
the most recent filing in this case. For the reasons stated
above, this Court DENIES Plaintiff's
Motion for Reconsideration. [ECF #24].
IS SO ORDERED.