Miller v. Gorman, No. 1:2022cv00901 - Document 24 (E.D. Va. 2023)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER that Mr. Miller's Second Emergency Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 22) is DENIED (see Order for details). Signed by District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles on 12/11/2023. (Sbro)

Download PDF

Miller v. Gorman Doc. 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division DAVID AUGUSTUS MILLER,III, Appellant^ Civil Action No. l:22-cv-901 (PTG/IDD) V. (Bankruptcy Case No. 21-11835) THOMAS GORMAN, Appellee, MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Debtor-Appellant David Augustus Miller, Ill's Second Emergency Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's order dismissing his appeal from U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Brian F. Kenney's July 22, 2022 Order. Dkt. 22. For the following reasons, the Court will deny the Second Emergency Motion for Reconsideration. I. BACKGROUND The Court has already described the history of this matter at length in prior orders. See Dkt. 21 at 1-2. IL DISCUSSION Although it is not entirely clear, Mr. Miller appears to identify Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)' as the legal standard under which he brings his Motion for Reconsideration. See Dkt. 22 at 2. As Mr. Miller is proceeding pro se,the Court thus construes his Motion as a request for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Davis v. Fortune Inv. 'Mr. Miller specifically identifies "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)(3)" as the proper legal standard under which he brings his second Motion for Reconsideration. See Dkt. 22 at 2. Because Rule 59(e)(3) does not exist, the Court assumes Mr. Miller intended to identify Rule 59(e). Dockets.Justia.com Enters., Nos. 3:20-cv-78, 3:20-cv-79, 2020 WL 3052862, at *2 (E.D. Va. June 8, 2020). Mr. Miller's instant Motion does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 59(e). The Fourth Circuit has recognized three situations in which it is appropriate to amend an earlierjudgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 oflaw or prevent manifest injustice." Ingle v. Yelton,439 F.3d 191,197(4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396,403(4th Cir. 1998)). Mr. Miller first rehashes the argument he previously made in the first Motion for Reconsideration, that "Appellee[, Mr. Gorman, the trustee,] without any cause shown filed his brief after it was due, thereby "ignorpng] the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure[.]" Dkt. 22 at 1-2. The Court already addressed this argument in its prior Order,see Dkt. 21 at 4, and will not do so again. Mr. Miller also argues that Mr. Gorman "misrepresented the facts" as to his Chapter 13 bankruptcy and denies that he filed his bankruptcy based on the dispute with Tyson's Watch and Jewelry. See Dkt.22 at 2. Mr. Miller claims that this "intentional misrepresentation" has deprived him of"receiving his due process[.]" Id. Lastly, Mr. Miller argues that Mr. Gorman "failed to collect any property of the estate" during the pendency of the case and that any funds received "should be sanctioned." Id. at 3. These arguments fail to identify any factual or legal errors that require correction,a change in the controlling law,or new evidence. Indeed, all ofthese arguments could have been made on February 24,2022,the day on which the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on the Objections to Confirmation of Mr. Miller's Bankruptcy Plan. See Dkt. 21 at 1 (citing Dkts. 2-1 at 5, 2-2 at 1:6-12). These arguments do not "account for new evidence" nor do they point to "a clear error oflaw[,]" Ingle,439 F.3d at 197, and thus, this Court is unable to reconsider its earlier Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Mr. Miller's Second Emergency Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 22)is DENIED. Dated: December II ,2023 Alexandria, Virginia ^Patricia Tolliver Giles United States District Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.