Supreme-El v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al, No. 3:2014cv00055 - Document 25 (E.D. Va. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 03/23/2016. (ccol, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Supreme-El v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al Doc. 25 L IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE £ EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division MAR 2 3 201$ 1 METAPHYZIC EL-ECTROMAGNETIC SUPREME-EL, ni ..J plERK U.S. DiS 1i^tCT court RICHMOND. VA Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ^ 3;14CV55 al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Metapyhzic El-ectromagnetic proceeding pro se and m § 1983 action. member National, ... a Nation Permanent Mission; of Government; the forma pauperis, the a a Virginia Autochthon member a Yamassee inmate filed this 42 U.S.C. Supreme-El claims that he is a Moorish-American (Moorish) Suprerae-El, of "free sovereign the Amurican diplomatic agent Native . American . .; a Muurish foreign government irrespective of recognition by United States." (Part. Compl. f 5, ECF No. 20.)^ Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on October 26, Court dismissed Supreme-El's action as frivolous. By 2015, the (ECF Nos. 21, 22.) On November 23, 2015,^ Supreme-El filed a Motion for Relief under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 59(e) ("Rule 59(e) Motion"). ^ The Court corrects the capitalization in the quotations from Supreme-El's submissions. ^ This is the date Supreme-El indicates that he mailed his Rule 59(e) Motion to the Court Court deems this the filed date. 266, 276 (1988) . (Rule 59(e) Mot. 2), See Houston v. Lack, and the 487 U.S. Dockets.Justia.com For No. the 23} reasons set forth below, the Rule 59 {e) after its Motion (ECF will be denied. "[R]econsideration of a judgment entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly." Pac. Ins. Co. {4th V. Am. 1998) The Nat'l (citation United recognizes Fire Ins. omitted) States accommodate an account for correct a clear Hutchinson v. of evidence error of Staton, (D. F.R.D. Md. 625, 1991); in 403 marks the law or prevent F.2d v. 1076, Koppers Atkins at Circuit v. (S.D. Miss. seeks law; (2) to or (3) to injustice." (4th 771 Cir. Supp. F. 1993) 1406, LeTourneau Co., 130 1990)). apparently to manifest Co., Marathon "(1) trial; 1081 Cir. omitted). Fourth controlling available 626 because he believes Supreme-El the contends statute conditions, finds relief Court under applies a IFP filings district 28 to to be frivolous must a U.S.C. in § actions the clear erred third ground error to dismiss or malicious of law. screening his 1915(e)(2) because concerning prison "Under 28 U.S.C.A. in addition court under committed Supreme-El is wrong. which governs prisoners, only Court the Particularized Complaint court for not Supreme-El that 396, quotation Appeals change 994 {citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. 1419 F.3d for relief under Rule 59(e): intervening new 148 (internal Court three grounds Co., § 1915(e), complaints filed an that action or that fails by the to state a claim." {4th Michau v. Cir. Accordingly, 2006) Charleston Cty., {citing 28 S.C., U.S.C. 434 F.3d 725, § 728 1915{e)(2)(B)). Supreme-El's Rule 59(e) Motion {ECF No. 23) will be denied. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Supreme-El. I t is so ORDERED. /s/ l2.(Y Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia
]]>
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.
