Qian Williams v. Drug Enforcement Administration, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied the plaintiff’s motions to reconsider and for relief from the judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(1), (3), and (6). The court held that the plaintiff was attempting to reargue previously rejected claims and had not shown a qualifying mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, or extraordinary circumstances. The court also denied as moot two motions to compel concerning requested DEA records.

Holdings

1. The court denied Williams's Rule 59(e) motion because he identified no clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, intervening change in controlling law, or need to prevent manifest injustice, and his arguments merely attempted to reargue or restructure claims previously rejected.
2. The court denied relief under Rule 60(b)(1) because Williams did not establish an excusable mistake or a substantive legal or factual mistake by the court.
3. The court denied relief under Rule 60(b)(3) because Williams did not provide clear and convincing evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct pertinent to the civil action.
4. The court denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because Williams showed no extraordinary circumstances justifying relief from the judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Williams was entitled to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
2. Whether Williams was entitled to relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), (3), or (6).
3. Whether the motions to compel should be granted after dismissal of the action.

Disposition

other