Shield our Constitutional Rights and Justice et al v. Hicks, No. 8:2009cv00940 - Document 21 (D. Md. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Plaintiffs and Sol Rosen, Esq. 4/12/10 sat). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 4/12/10. (sat, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SHIELD OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND JUSTICE, et al. : : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 09-0940 : RYAN L. HICKS : MEMORANDUM OPINION Presently pending and ready for resolution are Plaintiffs motions for extension reconsideration, of (Papers time 16 and to file 18), motion for alternatively or a for reconsideration (Paper 16), and for a stay (Paper 18). The court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed necessary. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs motions will be denied.1 I. Background The background to this case may be found in the court s last memorandum opinion. (Paper 14, at 1-4). On November 4, 2009, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order dismissing Plaintiffs Shield our Constitutional Rights and Justice and George McDermott for lack of standing, finding that some of 1 The pending motions were purportedly filed by Plaintiffs attorney, Mr. Rosen, whose membership in the District of Maryland Bar is now inactive. The court will send this memorandum opinion and order directly to Plaintiffs because they are now unrepresented. Plaintiffs claims were time-barred, and dismissing Plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a claim. (Papers 14 and 15). On November 16, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for extension for file motion to reconsider because Plaintiffs Attorney was/is very sick and in emergency room of hospital; and Motion to reconsider (when extension denied) by apply Plaintiffs stated in all other motions, memorandums, and replies in cases no. 09-cv00151-DKC, and 09-cv-100152-DKC for reconsiderations. 16). On extension November 30, time Plaintiffs for 2009, Plaintiffs to respond filed and a (Paper Motion file for response, reply, and court documents; Motion for a partial temporary stay for Judge Chasanow s rulings not in Plaintiffs favor, but do not stay for rulings in Plaintiffs favors. (Paper 18) (emphasis in original). II. Analysis In both motions, Plaintiffs argue that the court should extend the time to file a motion to reconsider. In Plaintiffs first motion, Plaintiffs appear to ask the court to reconsider its November 4, 2009, opinion and order stating, In the case the Honorable Judge denied their motion for extension, to not miss the court deadline, here, Plaintiffs file this motion to reconsider, by apply all they stated and filed Motions, Memorandums, and Replies in the cases no. 09-cv-00151-DKC and 2 09-cv-100152-DKC for reconsiderations. (Paper 16, at 2). In Plaintiffs second motion, Plaintiffs also state, Plaintiffs respectfully requested the Honorable Judge Chasanow to provide and clarify federal statutes to support her rulings, and respectfully request the Honorable Judge Chasanow to present a legitimate reverse non-discriminatory treatments and reason judgments Chinese-born Asian American woman. for against her Ms. disparate Qihui and Huang, (Paper 18, at 1). Defendants counter that Plaintiffs motions were untimely under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and that, to the extent that Plaintiff is asking the court to reconsider its prior opinion, Plaintiffs motions should decided. be denied because the issues (Paper 19, at 3; Paper 17, at 1). were properly Plaintiffs respond arguing that their motions were timely filed with the court. (Paper 20, at 2). Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) allows a party to file a motion to alter or amend a judgment no later than 10 days after the entry of the judgment. 2 time. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6 governs computing and extending For a period less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays are excluded. 2 This opinion refers to the Federal Rules Procedure that were in effect as of November 2009. 3 of Civil Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) permits a party to file a motion to reconsider a judgment within a reasonable time. 60(c)(1). Fed.R.Civ.P. If a party files a motion to reconsider a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the reasons of (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); [or] (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party, a motion filed under Rule 60(b) must be made within a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1-3) and (c). A court must not extend the time to act under Rules 59(b), (d), and (e), and Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(2). 60(b), except as those rules allow. Rule 59(e) does not permit the court to extend the time to file a motion to amend beyond the 10 days provided. Here, the court s order was docketed on November 4, 2009. Excluding Saturdays and Sundays, Plaintiff would have had to file her motion to amend under Rule 59(e) by November 18, 2009. Plaintiff s motion for an extension of time or to reconsider, filed on November 16, 2009, states, In the case the Honorable Judge denied their motion for extension, to not miss the court deadline, here, Plaintiffs file this motion to reconsider, by 4 apply all they stated and filed Motions, Memorandums, and Replies in cases no. 09-cv-00151-DKC and 09-cv-100152-DKC for reconsiderations. (Paper 16, at 2). Because Paper 16 was filed within the 10 day window provided by Rule 59(e), the court may consider Plaintiffs motion to reconsider as stated therein. Plaintiffs have not filed any other motion to amend, and would not be able to file a motion to amend under Rule 59 now because the deadline for any motion to amend was November 18, 2009. Under Rule 60, Plaintiffs have to file their motion to reconsider within a reasonable time and at most under a year after the November 4, 2009 order. A year has not yet passed since November 4, 2009, so Plaintiffs do not need an extension of time to file a motion to reconsider under Rule 60. Therefore, Plaintiffs motion for an extension of time will be denied. Under grounds Rule for 59(e), granting courts a have motion for recognized three reconsideration: limited (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. United States ex rel. Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2002)(quoting Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. 5 denied, 538 U.S. 1012 (2003)). A motion to reconsider is not a license to reargue the merits or present new evidence. RGI, Inc. v. Unified Indus., Inc., 963 F.2d 658, 662 (4th Cir. 1992)). Additionally, motions for reconsideration are an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly. Pacific Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1104 (1999). Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration does not meet any of the three Plaintiffs intervening grounds for reconsideration boilerplate change in motion the law, has newly under not Rule 59(e). identified developed any evidence, or clear error of law or manifest injustice that would alter the court s November 4, 2009 opinion. Therefore, the court will deny Plaintiffs motion to reconsider. Additionally, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for extension time for Plaintiffs to respond and file response, reply, and court documents; Motion for a partial temporary stay for Judge Chasanow s rulings not in Plaintiffs favor, but do not stay for rulings in original). Plaintiffs (Paper 18). favors. (Paper 18) (emphasis in Plaintiff s motion is nonsensical and will be denied. 6 III. Conclusion For denied. the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs motions will A separate Order will follow. /s/ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 7 be
]]>
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.
