United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
February 6, 2015
MARK CHITTUM, Plaintiff,
DR. DIXON, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION (Denying Rule 59(e) Motion)
HENRY E. HUDSON, District Judge.
Plaintiff Mark Chittum, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. By Memorandum Opinion and Order (ECF Nos. 32, 33) entered on November 7, 2014, the Court dismissed Chittum's action without prejudice for failing to comply with the Court's directives. On November 25, 2014, the Court received a letter from Chittum requesting that the Court "change the dismissed action [and] allow [him] to continue [his] case." (Mot. for Reconsideration, ECF No. 35, at 1.) Because Chittum 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)). Chittum fails to demonstrate that the Court committed a clear error of law in dismissing the present action. Rather than presenting grounds for relief under Rule 59(e), Chittum merely argues that he now requires legal representation because his previous "representative, " another inmate, was "shipped out." (Mot. for Reconsideration at 1.) Chittum also explains that he needs "help paying the filing fee." ( Id. ) Chittum presents no basis for granting Rule 59(e) relief. Accordingly, Chittum's Rule 59(e) Motion (ECF No. 35) will be DENIED.
The Court notes that Chittum's case was dismissed without prejudice. Therefore, if Chittum wishes to pursue this action he may file a new complaint with the Court.
An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.