United States District Court, D. Maryland
MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL RE:
L. RUSSELL, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiff Jason Jakubowski's Motion
for Reconsideration (ECF No. 22). The Motion is ripe for
disposition, and no hearing is necessary. See Local
Rule 105.6 (D.Md. 2016). For the reasons outlined below, the
Court will deny the Motion.
alleges that Defendants Family Service Foundation, Inc. (the
“Foundation”), Service Coordination, Inc.
(“SCI”), Tina Ashe, and Larry Lipsitz failed to
adequately monitor him, resulting in hospitalization and
medical treatment. (Compl., ECF No. 1). He brings claims
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018), the Rehabilitation Act,
Maryland Declaration of Rights Article 24, and Maryland
common law. (Id. ¶¶ 54-117). SCI filed its
Motion to Dismiss on August 14, 2017, (ECF No. 7), and the
Foundation, Ashe, and Lipsitz filed their Motion to Dismiss
on August 24, 2017, (ECF No. 11). On October 4, 2017, the
Court granted Defendants' Motions. (ECF Nos. 20, 21). In
relevant part, the Court concluded that Jakubowski
insufficiently pled that Defendants acted under the color of
state law. (Oct. 2017 Mem. Op. at 1, ECF No. 20).
now moves for the Court to reconsider its October 4, 2017
Order. (ECF No. 22). On November 1, 2017, SCI filed its
Opposition, as did the Foundation, Ashe, and Lipsitz. (ECF
Nos. 23, 25). To date, the Court has not received a reply
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure include three Rules that
permit a party to move for reconsideration. Of import here,
Rule 59(e) controls when a party files a motion to alter or
amend within twenty-eight days of the final judgment.
Bolden v. McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC, No.
DKC 13-1265, 2014 WL 994066, at *1 n.1 (D.Md. Mar. 13, 2014).
If the Motion is filed later, Rule 60(b) controls.
Id. In this case, the Court issued an Order granting
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and closing the case on
October 4, 2017. (ECF No. 21). Jakubowski moved for
reconsideration of that Order on October 18, 2017-within
twenty-eight days. (ECF No. 38). Thus, Rule 59(e)
motion under Rule 59(e) is “discretionary” and
“need not be granted” unless: (1) “there
has been an intervening change of controlling law”; (2)
“new evidence has become available”; or (3)
“there is a need to correct a clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.” Robinson v. Wix Filtration
Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 411 (4th Cir. 2010) (citing
Ingle ex rel. Estate of Ingle v. Yelton, 439 F.3d
191, 197 (4th Cir. 2006)). A Rule 59(e) amendment is
“an extraordinary remedy which should be used
sparingly.” Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire
Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (quoting
Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, at 124 (2d ed.
1995)). Furthermore, “[a] motion for reconsideration is
‘not the proper place to relitigate a case after the
court has ruled against a party, as mere disagreement with a
court's rulings will not support granting such a
request.'” Lynn v. Monarch Recovery Mgmt.,
Inc., 953 F.Supp.2d 612, 620 (D.Md. 2013) (quoting
Sanders v. Prince George's Pub. Sch. Sys., No.
RWT 08CV501, 2011 WL 4443441, at *1 (D.Md. Sept. 21, 2011)).
Nor may Rule 59(e) motions be used to raise arguments that
“could have been raised prior to the issuance of the
judgment” or to “argue a case under a novel legal
theory that the party had the ability to address in the first
instance.” Pac. Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at 403.
Jakubowski argues that he has sufficiently pled that
Defendants are state actors. He does not specify the basis
under which he brings his Rule 59(e) Motion. He appears to
assert that the Court made a clear error of law when it
concluded there are insufficient allegations that Defendants
acted under the color of state law. (See Oct. 2017
Mem. Op. at 1). The Court disagrees.
submits that Maryland statutes set forth a policy of
promoting, protecting, and preserving the “human
dignity, ” “constitutional rights[, ] and
liberties” of individuals with developmental disability
and establish the Maryland Developmental Disabilities
Administration (the “DDA”). (Pl.'s Mot.
Recons. at 3, ECF No. 22) (quoting Md. Code Health-Gen.
§ 7-102(1)). As a result, Jakubowski contends, Maryland
“significantly and explicitly encourages”
administration of services to individuals with developmental
disability by “fund[ing], oversee[ing], regulat[ing],
and licens[ing]” the Foundation and SCI in order to
meet its statutory obligations. (Id. at 4). The
Foundation and SCI, in turn, “have undertaken”
Maryland's “responsibility to care for
developmentally disabled individuals” by providing
services through the DDA. Thus, Jakubowski maintains, he has
sufficiently pled that Defendants are state actors.
contentions are unavailing. None of them are supported by the
allegations in the Complaint. Indeed, in his Complaint, he
only pleads that Defendants “are state actors and
function as servants and/or actual and/or apparent agents of
the state of Maryland, thus acting under color of state
law.” (Compl. ¶ 57). Jakubowski brings no other
allegation supporting his arguments about the relationship
between Maryland, the Foundation, and SCI. And this sole
allegation is too conclusory to survive a motion to dismiss
under Rule 12(b)(6). See United Black Firefighters v.
Hirst, 604 F.2d 844, 847 (4th Cir. 1979) (holding that
the court need not accept unsupported or conclusory factual
allegations devoid of any reference to actual events).
Court concludes, therefore, that Jakubowski has failed to
provide sufficient grounds under Rule 59(e) for the Court to
alter or amend its October 4, 2017 Order. Accordingly, the
Court will deny his Motion.
foregoing reasons, Jakubowski's Motion for
Reconsideration (ECF No. 22) is DENIED. Despite the informal
nature of this memorandum, it shall constitute an Order of
this Court, and the Clerk is directed to docket it