Patterson v. Youngkin

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denies Larry Edwin Patterson’s motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Patterson challenged the court’s grant of summary judgment for Patricia West in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action concerning denial of discretionary parole, arguing that the court relied on improper evidence, failed to provide adequate discovery assistance, and should have appointed counsel. The court concludes that Patterson identifies no clear error of law, manifest injustice, or other basis for Rule 59(e) relief.

Holdings

1. The motion to alter or amend the judgment was properly denied because Patterson identified no intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error of law, manifest injustice, or other recognized basis for Rule 59(e) relief.
2. The prior grant of summary judgment on Patterson's retaliation claim did not constitute clear error of law or manifest injustice.
3. The court's discovery rulings and decision not to appoint counsel did not warrant Rule 59(e) relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Patterson satisfied any ground for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
2. Whether the court clearly erred in granting summary judgment on Patterson's retaliation claim.
3. Whether alleged limitations on discovery, evidentiary rulings, or the denial of appointed counsel warranted altering or amending the judgment.

Disposition

other