Epps v. United States of America, No. 3:2017cv00646 - Document 23 (E.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 10/29/2018. Copy mailed to plaintiff. (tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Epps v. United States of America Doc. 23 M l£ "Tzn OCT 30 2018 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division IL CLERK, us r - Pir,'. , HUGH ROYAL EPFS, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:17CV646-HEH V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION (Granting Rule 59(e) Relief and Reopening Action) By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on April 19,2018(ECF No. 14), the Court directed Plaintiffto file a particularized complaint because Plaintifffailed to identify under what federal law he sought to bring his claims. After an extension. Plaintiff filed a Particularized Complaint. However,this Particularized Complaint was also deficient. Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on August 3,2018,the Court directed Plaintiff, within fourteen(14)days ofthe date ofentry thereof, to file a second particularized complaint that complied with certain directives. (ECF No. 19, at 13.) The Court wamed Plaintiff that the failure to submit the second particularized complaint would result in the dismissal ofthe action. {Id. at 2.) Because more than fourteen days elapsed after the entry ofthe August 3,2018 Memorandum Order, and Plaintiff failed to submit a second particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the August 3,2018 Memorandum Order, by Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on August 31,2018, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice. Dockets.Justia.com On September 11, 2018, the Court received from Plaintiff a Motion for Reconsideration(ECF No. 22), with a Second Particularized Complaint(ECF No.22-2) attached. Because the motion was filed within twenty-eight(28) days ofthe Court's entry ofthe August 31, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court construes the motion as a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)("Rule 59(e) Motion"). See MLC Auto., LLC v. Town ofSouthern Pines, 532 F.3d 269,277-78(4th Cir. 2008)(citing Dove v. CODESCO,569 F.2d 807,809(4th Cir. 1978)). "[RJeconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly." Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'I Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396,403 (4th Cir. 1998)(internal quotation marks omitted). 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 oflaw or prevent manifest injustice." Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993)(citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers Co., Ill F. Supp. 1406, 1419(D. Md. 1991)). Although the Court never received the Second Particularized Complaint, Plaintiffswears that he placed his Second Particularized Complaint in the prison mailing system on August 9,2018, well within the fourteen days permitted by the August 3, 2018 Memorandum Order. (Rule 59(e) Mot. 1; ECF No. 22-1, at 1.) Thus, Plaintiff appears to argue that the case should be reopened to prevent manifest injustice. Because it is unclear what happened to Plaintiffs initial submission of his Second Particularized Complaint,the Rule 59(e) Motion(EOF No. 22) will be granted. The August 31,2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order will be vacated. The Clerk is directed to send a copy ofthe Memorandum Opinion to Plaintiff. It is so ORDERED. /s/ DateA^ 2^^ tot? Richmond, Vnginia HENRY E.HUDSON 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.
