Keithen D. Carter v. Lieutenant Driscoll, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denies Keithen D. Carter’s Rule 59(e) motion seeking reconsideration of the dismissal of his civil action without prejudice. The court concludes that Carter failed to comply with the directive to return a consent to collection of fees form and therefore failed to demonstrate a basis for reconsideration. Although the original action remains closed, the court directs the Clerk to file Carter’s complaint as a new civil action.

Holdings

1. A filing submitted within twenty-eight days after entry of judgment that seeks reconsideration may be construed as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), notwithstanding its title as a notice of appeal.
2. Relief under Rule 59(e) was unwarranted because Carter did not establish an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, a clear error of law, or manifest injustice.
3. The prior dismissal without prejudice was appropriate because Carter willfully failed to comply with the court's order concerning collection of the filing fee and did not pay the filing fee.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Carter's filing, submitted within twenty-eight days after dismissal and styled as a notice of appeal, should be construed as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
2. Whether Carter demonstrated a ground warranting relief from the dismissal under Rule 59(e).
3. Whether the court should direct the Clerk to open a new civil action after denying reconsideration.

Disposition

other