WALKER v. WHEELER
| James T. Walker |
| Andrew Wheeler |
| 1:2021cv00312 |
| March 15, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| Claude M Hilton |
| Michael S Nachmanoff |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 22, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 16
Case transferred in from District of District of Columbia; Case Number 1:20-cv-00235. Original file and docket sheet received.
|
|
Notification of transfer of case from the District of Columbia Case No. 1:20cv235 to the Eastern District of Virginia. (ldab, )
|
|
Case Reassigned to District Judge Claude M. Hilton. District Judge T. S. Ellis, III no longer assigned to the case. (aott, )
|
|
MINUTE ORDER denying Plaintiff's #14 Motion for Reconsideration and #15 Motion to Stay: Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), asking the Court to reexamine its #13 Memorandum Opinion and Order transferring this case to the Eastern District of Virginia. ECF No. 14. "A Rule 59(e) motion is discretionary and need not be granted unless the district court finds that there is an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Messina v. Krakower, 439 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 2006). "'Rule 59(e) permits a court to alter or amend a judgment, but it may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.'" Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 947 F. Supp. 2d 48, 77 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008)) (cleaned up). "This is because 'Rule 59(e) motions are aimed at reconsideration, not initial consideration.'" Id. (quoting GSS Grp. Ltd. v. Nat'l Port Auth., 680 F.3d 805, 812 (D.C. Cir. 2012)) (cleaned up). Here, Plaintiff points to no circumstance that would justify reconsideration. He identifies no intervening change of law or new evidence and instead tries to make out "clear error" in the Court's reasoning. But he primarily rehashes the same arguments that he previously made in opposition to Defendant's #4 Motion to Dismiss and that the Court already rejected. See ECF No. 12. To the extent Plaintiff contends the Court erred by not considering one of the arguments raised in his opposition, the Court disagrees. Plaintiff asserts he argued in his opposition that venue is proper in this Court because he would have worked in the District of Columbia but for the discrimination he allegedly suffered. ECF No. 14 at 11. But the paragraph from his opposition that he points to as containing this argument merely mentions that his former colleagues eventually returned to offices in the District of Columbia after he left Defendant's employ, and this assertion was made in the context of arguing for venue on other, independent bases. Plaintiff does not explain how the Court clearly erred by not considering an argument that he did not raise on an issue as to which he bears the burden. Ellis-Smith v. Sec'y of Army, 793 F. Supp. 2d 173, 175 (D.D.C. 2011) (plaintiff "bears the burden of establishing that venue is proper" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Rather than demonstrating clear error, Plaintiff is improperly raising a new argument for the first time on a motion for reconsideration. See Cromartie v. District of Columbia, 806 F. Supp. 2d 222, 228 (D.D.C. 2011) (A "Rule 59(e) motion is not a proper vehicle for raising arguments that could have been raised in a timely filed opposition."). For these reasons, Plaintiff's #14 Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.Plaintiff has also moved for an emergency stay of the Court's #13 Memorandum Opinion and Order transferring this case. ECF No. 15. "A federal district court 'has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.'" Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Ross, 419 F. Supp. 3d 16, 20 (D.D.C. 2019) (quoting Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997)). When determining whether to issue a stay, the Court considers "(1) harm to the nonmoving party if a stay does issue; (2) the moving party's need for a stay--that is, the harm to the moving party if a stay does not issue; and (3) whether a stay would promote efficient use of the court's resources." Id. Given that the Court has now ruled on Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, a stay would be in neither party's interest and would not promote efficient use of the Court's resources. Therefore, Plaintiff's #15 Motion to Stay is hereby DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to immediately transfer the case. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 3/11/2021. (lctjk1) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 3/15/2021.]
|
|
Filing 15
MOTION to Stay re #13 Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion to Amend/Correct by JAMES T. WALKER. (ztth); Modified Date Filed on 3/10/2021 (ztth). [Transferred from District of Columbia on 3/15/2021.]
|
|
Filing 14
MOTION for Reconsideration re #13 Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion to Amend/Correct by JAMES T. WALKER. (ztth) Modified Date Filed on 3/10/2021 (ztth). [Transferred from District of Columbia on 3/15/2021.]
|
|
Set/Reset Deadlines: Transfer due by 3/11/2021. (zkh) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 3/15/2021.]
|
|
Filing 13
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part Defendant's #4 Motion to Dismiss and holding in abeyance Plaintiff's #7 Motion to Amend. See Memorandum and Order for details. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 2/18/2021. (lctjk1) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 3/15/2021.]
|
|
Filing 12
REPLY to opposition to motion re #7 MOTION to Amend/Correct #1 Complaint filed by JAMES T. WALKER. (zrdj) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/2/2020: #1 Exhibit) (zrdj). [Transferred from District of Columbia on 3/15/2021.]
|
|
MINUTE ORDER granting Plaintiff's #10 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. Upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion, it is hereby ORDERED, for good cause shown, that Plaintiff shall file any reply in support of his #7 Motion to Amend the Complaint by September 30, 2020. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 9/4/2020. (lctjk1) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 3/15/2021.]
|
|
Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's Reply due by 9/30/2020. (zkh) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 3/15/2021.]
|
|
Filing 11
RESPONSE re #10 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #7 MOTION to Amend/Correct #1 Complaint filed by ANDREW WHEELER. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit E-mail)(Field, Brian) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 3/15/2021.]
|
|
Filing 10
MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #7 MOTION to Amend/Correct #1 Complaint by JAMES T. WALKER (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(zrdj) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 3/15/2021.]
|
|
Filing 9
Memorandum in opposition to re #7 MOTION to Amend/Correct #1 Complaint filed by ANDREW WHEELER. (Field, Brian) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 3/15/2021.]
|
|
Filing 8
MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #7 MOTION to Amend/Correct #1 Complaint by ANDREW WHEELER (Field, Brian) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 3/15/2021.]
|
|
MINUTE ORDER granting, for good cause shown, Defendant's #8 Motion for Extension of Time. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file any response to Plaintiff's #7 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint by August 31, 2020. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file any reply in support of his #7 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint by September 7, 2020. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 8/4/2020. (lctjk1) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 3/15/2021.]
|
|
Filing 7
MOTION to Amend/Correct #1 Complaint by JAMES T. WALKER (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order, #2 Exhibit Amended Complaint) (ztth) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 3/15/2021.]
|
|
MINUTE ORDER granting, for good cause shown, Plaintiff's #6 Motion for Extension of Time. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file any opposition to Defendant's #4 Motion to Dismiss by July 22, 2020. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 6/5/2020. (lctjk1) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 3/15/2021.]
|
|
Filing 6
MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #4 MOTION to Dismiss by JAMES T. WALKER (Attachment: #1 Text of Proposed Order) (ztth) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 3/15/2021.]
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER advising Plaintiff to respond by June 22, 2020, to Defendant's #4 Motion to Dismiss or risk dismissal of the case. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 5/22/2020. (lctjk1) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 3/15/2021.]
|
|
Filing 4
MOTION to Dismiss by ANDREW WHEELER (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support, #2 Declaration Meighan Decl., #3 Declaration Bussard Decl., #4 Declaration Davis Decl.)(Field, Brian) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 3/15/2021.]
|
|
Filing 3
MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint by ANDREW WHEELER (Field, Brian) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 3/15/2021.]
|
|
MINUTE ORDER treating as opposed and for good cause shown granting Defendant's #3 Motion for Extension of Time. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff's #1 Complaint by May 25, 2020. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 4/30/2020. (lctjk1) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 3/15/2021.]
|
|
Filing 2
RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. ANDREW WHEELER served on 3/5/2020, RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 3/5/2020. RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 3/5/2020. (Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 5/4/2020.) (ztth) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 3/15/2021.]
|
|
SUMMONS (3) Issued as to ANDREW WHEELER, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. (zmd) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 3/15/2021.]
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT against ANDREW WHEELER (Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 4616102224) with Jury Demand filed by JAMES T. WALKER. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit - Attachments, #2 Civil Cover Sheet) (ztth) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 3/15/2021.]
|
|
SUMMONS Not Issued as to ANDREW WHEELER (ztth) [Transferred from District of Columbia on 3/15/2021.]
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Virginia Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: WALKER v. WHEELER | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: James T. Walker | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Andrew Wheeler | |
| Represented By: | Brian J. Field |
| Represented By: | Lauren A. Wetzler |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
