United States District Court, D. Maryland
L. Hollander United States District Judge
March 30, 2018, David Michael Montgomery filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the court's Order of March 13, 2018,
which dismissed his complaint, without prejudice, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1915(g). ECF 3.
Complaint asserted claims based on past medical episodes
associated with the tapering of his pain medications. At the
time he filed his complaint, Montgomery was receiving pain
medication, did not allege he was suffering any dangerous
side effects, or that necessary medication was likely to be
discontinued. Consequently, I determined that Montgomery did
not allege facts to substantiate that he was in
“imminent danger of serious physical injury” to
warrant making an exception to the filing fee requirement
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not contain an express
provision for a “motion for reconsideration” of a
final judgment. Katyle v. Penn Nat'l Gaming,
Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 470 n.4 (4th Cir. 2011), cert.
denied, 132 S.Ct. 115 (2011); see also Ngatia v.
Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Serv., WDQ-14-0899,
2015 WL 7012672, at *2 (D. Md. Nov. 12, 2015). Fed.R.Civ.P.
59(e) is captioned “Motion to Alter or Amend a
Judgment.” It states: “A motion to alter or amend
a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the
entry of the judgment.” A district court may amend a
judgment under Rule 59(e), inter alia, to
“prevent manifest injustice.” Hutchinson v.
Stanton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 2002).
circuit, there are three limited grounds for granting a
motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e): (1) to
accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to
account for new evidence not previously available; or (3) to
correct clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.
See United States ex. rel. Becker v. Westinghouse
Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2002)
(citing Pacific Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins.
Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998)). A Rule 59(e)
motion “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.” Pac. Ins.
Co., 148 F.3d at 403 (quoting 11 Wright, et al.,
Federal Practice & Procedure § 2810.1, at
127-28 (2d ed. 1995)); see also Medlock v. Rumsfeld,
336 F.Supp.2d 452, 470 (D. Md. 2002), (“To the extent
that Plaintiff is simply trying to reargue the case, he is
not permitted to do so. Where a motion does not raise new
arguments, but merely urges the court to ‘change its
mind, ' relief is not authorized.”) (citation
omitted), aff'd, 86 Fed.App'x 665 (4th Cir.
2004) (per curiam) (citation omitted). “In general,
‘reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an
extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.'
” Pac. Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at 403 (quoting
Wright, et al., supra, § 2810.1, at 124).
Motion for Reconsideration, Montgomery argues that he
contacted medical and mental health providers “over and
over again” about side effects he suffers due to the
medications he is receiving. But, he acknowledges that his
situation is not one of “imminent danger” or a
matter of “life or death, ” although it is
serious. ECF 3 at 1. He states that on March 22, 2018, he was
seen by medical providers for his complaints of chest pain,
which he characterized as an emergency. In response to these
concerns, Montgomery was taken off a anxiety medication and
placed on another to address the side effects. Id.
new claims about cold and flu symptoms and possibly suffering
from a “walking” pneumonia, his difficulty
receiving mail, and people “messing” with his
personal information, are inappropriately raised in his
Motion for Reconsideration. ECF 3 at 3, 10. These claims may
be raised in a separately filed complaint that complies with
the filing fee requirements under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g).
Montgomery does not allege an intervening change in
controlling law or new evidence that was previously
unavailable, the only relevant ground for reconsideration is
to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest
injustice. Montgomery's allegations indicate ongoing
efforts to adjust his medications and to address reported
side effects. Of import, Montgomery acknowledges he is not in
imminent danger of serious physical harm. His allegations
indicate that when he reports problems or side effects, they
are addressed by medical and mental health providers.
Montgomery does not claim that he is being denied care. These
allegations, having failed to substantiate a claim of clear
error of law or compel reconsideration to prevent manifest
injustice, do not satisfy the exacting standard for
reconsideration, and the Motion for Reconsideration will be
 Montgomery was assigned three
“strikes” under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g), and is
barred from filing cases unless he pays the filing fee or
demonstrates that he is in “imminent danger of serious
physical injury. Montgomery v. Animation Adventer's
Computer Game Internet Ower, All Viewers, Civil Action
No. ELH-15-1772 ...