Berenyi v. Stolle, No. 3:2015cv00180 - Document 13 (E.D. Va. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 7/14/2015. Copy mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff. (jsmi, )

Download PDF
Berenyi v. Stolle Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division CHRISTOPHER BERENYI, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3: 15CV180 KEN STOLLE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a Virginia prisoner proceedingpro se, filed this civil action. By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on May 29, 2015, this Court dismissed the action without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to return a consent to collection of fees form and did not pay the statutory filing fee. On June 22, 2015, the Court received from Plaintiff a letter that the Court construes as a motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) ("Rule 59(e) Motion," ECF No. 9). 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., 771 F. Supp. 1406, 1419 (D. Md. 1991); Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D. Miss. 1990)). Plaintiff indicates that he "sent the form for informa pauperis" and that he is indigent. (Rule 59(e) Mot. 1 (emphasis added).) Plaintiff provides no adequate explanation for his failure to return a completed consent Dockets.Justia.com to collection of fees form. Instead, he states, "I give consent to collect fees although I do not have any at this time." (Id. at 2 (capitalization corrected).) Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the Court committed a clear error of law or that reopening his case is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. Nor does Plaintiff demonstrate any other basis for granting Rule 59(e) relief. See Williams v. Virginia, 524 F. App'x 40, 41 (4th Cir. 2013) ("The reconsideration of a judgment after entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly." (citing Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'/ Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998))). Accordingly, Plaintifrs Rule 59(e) Motion (ECF No. 9) will be DENIED. Nevertheless, in light of Plaintifrs desire to continue with his claims, the Court will direct the Clerk to refile Plaintifr s complaint as a new civil action as of the date of entry hereof. An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Isl M. Hannah Lauck United States District 1 ' 2015' Date: • Richmond, Virginia 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.