MOSKOVITS v. HARRIS et al
| ALEXANDER MOSKOVITS |
| SCOTT S. HARRIS and REDMOND K. BARNES |
| 1:2023cv02958 |
| October 3, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Timothy J Kelly |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 24, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
MINUTE ORDER denying Plaintiff's #4 Motion for Reconsideration. On October 12, 2023, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's #1 complaint for lack for subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of that Order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(6). For the following reasons, the Court denies reconsideration. In his complaint, Plaintiff sought to compel staff members in the U.S. Supreme Court's Office of the Clerk to docket his petition, but as the Court explained, it cannot "review any decision of the Supreme Court or its Clerk." ECF No. 3 at 2 (quoting In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992)). The Court concluded that "[s]uch an order would fall outside this Court's authority." Id. With respect to the #4 Motion for Reconsideration, a court's decision to grant 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). Moreover, these motions "are disfavored and relief from judgment is granted only when the moving party establishes extraordinary circumstances." Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Kappos, 891 F. Supp. 2d 135, 138 (D.D.C. 2012). Plaintiff argues that reconsideration is appropriate because (1) Defendants continue to refuse to docket his petition, and (2) under 28 U.S.C. 1631, the Court should transfer the complaint to the Supreme Court. Neither of these arguments present an intervening change of law, new evidence, or clear error regarding the Court's finding that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. Thus, Plaintiff has not come close to demonstrating the "extraordinary circumstances" required for a successful Rule 59(e) motion. Because the Court denies the Rule 59(e) motion, it also denies relief under Rule 60(b)(6). First, "it is the practice in this jurisdiction to construe Rule 60(b) motions filed, as here, within 28 days of the judgment as Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend the judgment." Slate v. Am. Broad. Companies, Inc., 12 F. Supp. 3d 30, 37 (D.D.C. 2013). Second, the Rule 60(b) standard is more stringent than the standard under Rule 59(e), and since Plaintiff's arguments are unsuccessful under Rule 59(e), they necessarily fail under Rule 60(b). Id. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's #4 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 11/24/2023. (lctjk2)
|
| Filing 4 MOTION for Reconsideration, MOTION to Alter; MOTION to Amend re #3 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, by ALEXANDER MOSKOVITS. (Attachment: #1 Exhibits)(zjm) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER denying Plaintiff's #2 Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and dismissing the #1 Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. This is a final, appealable order. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 10/12/2023. (lctjk2)
|
| Case Assigned to Judge Timothy J. Kelly. (zrtw) |
| Filing 2 EMERGENCY MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by ALEXANDER MOSKOVITS. (mg) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against REDMOND K. BARNES, SCOTT S. HARRIS ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 205721) filed by ALEXANDER MOSKOVITS. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Civil Cover Sheet)(mg) Modified docket text on 10/10/2023 (mg). |
| SUMMONS (4) Issued as to REDMOND K. BARNES, SCOTT S. HARRIS, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General.(mg) |
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 District Of Columbia 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
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.
