Chittum v. Dixon et al, No. 3:2014cv00272 - Document 37 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 2/6/15. Copy sent: Yes (tdai, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Chittum v. Dixon et al Doc. 37 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division MARK CHITTUM, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:14CV272-HEH v. DR. DIXON, etal, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION (Denying Rule 59(e) Motion) Plaintiff Mark Chittum, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.1 By Memorandum Opinion and Order (ECF Nos. 32, 33) entered on November 7,2014, the Court dismissed Chittum's action without prejudice for failing to comply with the Court's directives.2 On November 25, 2014, the Court received a letter from Chittum requesting that the Court "change the dismissed action [and] allow [him] to continue [his] case." (Mot. for Reconsideration, ECF No. 35, at 1.) Because Chittum filed his request for reconsideration within the twenty-eight day time limit for motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 1The statute provides, in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute ... of any State ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 2By Memorandum Order entered October 16, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiffs motion to postpone the action, and directed that Plaintiff, within fourteen (14) days ofthe date of entry thereof, file a response to the Memorandum Order indicating his clear intent to proceed with this action. The Court warned that failure to comply with the directive would result in dismissal of the action. As more than fourteen (14) days passed without Plaintiff complying with the Court's directive, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice. Dockets.Justia.com the Court treats the motion as one under Rule 59(e). Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has recognized three grounds for relief underRule 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 of law or prevent manifestinjustice." 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); Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D. Miss. 1990)).3 Chittum fails to demonstrate that the Court committed a clearerrorof law in dismissing the present action. Ratherthan presenting grounds for relief underRule 59(e), Chittum merelyargues that he now requires legal representation because his previous "representative," another inmate, was "shipped out." (Mot. for Reconsideration at 1.) Chittum also explains that he needs "helppaying the filing fee." (Id.) Chittum presents no basis for granting Rule 59(e) relief. Accordingly, Chittum's Rule 59(e) Motion (ECF No. 35) will be DENIED. The Courtnotes that Chittum's case was dismissed without prejudice. Therefore, if Chittum wishes to pursue this action he may file a new complaint with the Court. An appropriate Order will accompanythis Memorandum Opinion. ^ Date:Vig.WAigflfy w /s/ Henry E. Hudson United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia 3See Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat 7Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396,403 (4th Cir. 1998) (noting that a "'Rule 59(e) motion may notbe used to relitigate old matters, orto raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry ofjudgment.'" (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice andProcedure § 2810.1, at 127-28 (2d ed. 1995))).
]]>
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.
