United States District Court, D. Maryland
L. HOLLANDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
granted summary judgment in favor of defendants and ordered
this case closed on May 29, 2018. See ECF 19
(Memorandum Opinion); ECF 20 (Order). Thereafter, on June 8,
2018, Marcus Allen McFadden filed a notice of appeal to the
Fourth Circuit. See ECF 21; McFadden v. Barton,
et al., No. 18-6662 (4th Cir. June 11, 2018).
3, 2018, McFadden filed three related motions: a
“Motion to Alter Judgment” (ECF 26); a
“Motion to Amend Opposition to Defendants Motion To
Dismiss or, in the Alternative Motion For Summary
Judgment” (ECF 27); and a “Motion To Amend
Complaint.” ECF 28. McFadden may not amend the
complaint or his opposition in a closed case. Therefore, EC
27 and ECF 28 will be denied.
Motion to Alter Judgment, McFadden moves pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) to bring the excessive force claim raised
in his Complaint pursuant to the Eighth Amendment, not the
Fourteenth Amendment. ECF 26 at 2. McFadden asserts that he
raised the excessive force claim only under the Fourteenth
Amendment and belatedly wants to amend the Complaint in this
regard and, in consequence, to file a declaration to oppose
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF 26 at 2-3;
ECF 27; ECF 28.
Complaint raised claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. ECF 1 at 3. In
the Memorandum Opinion, I considered the excessive force
under the Eighth Amendment because the alleged use of
excessive force occurred when McFadden was serving a state
sentence at the Maryland Correctional Institution-Hagerstown.
ECF 19 n. 1.
fails to show circumstances warranting reconsideration.
Moreover, he was notified after defendants filed their motion
for summary judgment that he may file a response to
defendants' motion with affidavits and exhibits. ECF 13.
The Court granted McFadden's subsequent motion for an
extension of time to file an opposition. ECF 15. And, he
responded in opposition. ECF 17.
Motion to Alter Judgment is also untimely. A party may move
to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e), or for relief
from a final judgment under Rule 60. See MLC Auto., LLC
v. Town of Southern Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 280 (4th Cir.
2008); In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1, 2-3 (4th Cir.
1992). A motion to alter or amend filed within 28 days of
judgment is analyzed under Rule 59(e). See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e). McFadden filed his Motion to Alter Judgment on
July 3, 2018, more than twenty-eight days after entry of
judgment. As McFadden did not date the motion (ECF 26), he
derives no benefit from the “prison mailbox
rule.” See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266,
270-76 (1988); United States v. McNeill, 523
Fed.Appx. 979, 983 (4th Cir. 2013); United States v.
Dorsey, 988 F.Supp. 917, 919-920 (D. Md. 1998).
Therefore, Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 controls here.
the Motion to Alter Judgment would prove unavailing even if
it were considered under Rule 59(e). The Fourth Circuit has
“recognized that there are three grounds for amending
an earlier judgment [under Rule 59(e)]: (1) to accommodate an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new
evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear
error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” United
States ex rel. Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah River
Co., 305 F.3d 284, 290 (2002). McFadden's motion
satisfies none of these standards.
then, to Rule 60(b). It provides extraordinary relief and may
only be invoked under “exceptional circumstances,
” Compton v. Alton Steamship Co., Inc., 608
F.2d 96, 102 (4th Cir. 1982). The moving party must show: (1)
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2)
newly discovered evidence, which by due diligence could not
have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under
Rule 59(b); (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct
of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the
judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a
prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or
otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the
judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any
other reason justifying relief from the operation of the
Motion to Alter Judgment alleges no exceptional circumstances
to reconsider the Order granting defendants' motion for
summary judgment motion or otherwise amend his filings in
this closed case. McFadden may not request reconsideration to
relitigate old matters, to raise new arguments, or to present
evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of
judgment. Pacific Insurance Co. v. American National Fire
Insurance Co. 148 ...