MCBRIEN v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION et al, No. 1:2009cv00197 - Document 6 (D.D.C. 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, Ordered that the plaintiff's motion under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60 (b) is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 7/22/09. (ls, )

Download PDF
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUL 2 3 2009 Karen McBrien, Plaintiff, v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et aI., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NANGY MAYER WHITTINGTON, CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT Civil Action No. 09-197 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, pro se, has moved for reconsideration of the final order entered February 3, 2009, dismissing her complaint as frivolous. Plaintiff refers to both Rules 59(e) and 60(b) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons stated, her motion will be denied. A motion under Rule 59(e) must be filed within 10 days of entry of judgment. "Rule 59(e) motions are expressly limited to the 10-day period following entry of judgment, and the District Court simply has no power to extend that time limitation." Center for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. V Us. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 781 F.2d 935,941 (D.C. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion must be denied as untimely to the extent that it was intended as a Rule 59(e) motion. A motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) need not be filed within 10 days of the entry of judgment, and - because the plaintiff did not specify under which provision she was moving - her motion for reconsideration will be treated as one filed under Rule 60(b)(6), which allows a court to alter or provide relief from a final order "upon such terms as are just," for any "reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). A motion under Rule 60(b)(6) should only be used in "extraordinary circumstances." Pioneer Investment Servo CO. V. Brunswick Assoc. Limited Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993); see a/so, Kramer v. Gates, 481 F.3d 788, 792 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (stating that the remedy should be "sparingly used"). The plaintiffs motion does not provide any basis in fact or in law for granting the motion. The motion merely restates the allegations in her complaint, which were dismissed because they describe fantastic or delusional scenarios that are clearly baseless and wholly incredible. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiffs motion under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b)(6) is DENIED. Date: :is;;s« 7('V7jtJ1 2

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.