United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
April 30, 2014
GARY B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
CARL EASON, et al., Defendants.
(Denying Rule 59(e) Motion)
HENRY E. HUDSON, District Judge.
Gary B. Williams, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. In his § 1983 action, Williams sued the state judge who presided over his criminal trial and Williams's defense counsel. By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on March 4, 2014, the Court dismissed the action. On March 21, 2014, the Court received from Williams a motion seeking relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60. (ECF No. 12.) Because Williams filed his request for reconsideration within the twenty-eight-day time limit for motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), the Court treats the motion as one under Rule 59(e). Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978).
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 of law or prevent manifest injustice." Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993) (citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers Co., 771 F.Supp. 1406, 1419 (D. Md. 1991); Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D.Miss. 1990)). Williams fails to demonstrate that the Court committed a clear error of law in dismissing the present action. Nor does Williams demonstrate any other basis for granting Rule 59(e) relief. Accordingly, Williams's Rule 59(e) Motion (ECF No. 12) will be DENIED.
An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.