United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
W. GRIMM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jerome Want, pro se, brought this suit against his
landlord, Defendant Shindle Properties, LLC, and its manager
Defendant Michelle Miller-Thorpe (together,
"Shindle"). Am. Compl. 1, ECF No. 13. Want
contended that his apartment did not meet his needs and that
Shindle failed to remedy the situation after Want complained.
Am. Compl. 2-4. Accordingly, Want filed a nine-count
complaint against Shindle, alleging breach of contract (Count
1); misrepresentation and fraud (Count 2); "Lack of Good
Faith" (Count 3); gender discrimination, in violation of
the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3605 ("FHA")
(Count 4); race discrimination (Count 5); disability
discrimination, in violation of the FHA and state law (Count
6); retaliation, in violation of state and federal laws
(Count 7); age discrimination, in violation of the Older
Americans Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.
(Count 8); and disability discrimination, in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§
12101-12213 (Count 9). Am. Compl. 4-10. Mr. Want now asks me
to reconsider my June 28, 2019 Order, ECF No. 59, which
granted in part Shindle's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 32.
Mot. Reconsider, July 22, 2019, ECF Nos. 61, 63. Mr.
Want's motion shall be DENIED because he fails to provide
any grounds for reconsideration.
Want does not provide a legal basis for making his motion to
reconsider. However, I will construe it as a Rule 54(b)
motion to reconsider an order that is not a final judgment.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; Broadvox-CLEC, LLC v.
AT&T Corp., 98 F.Supp.3d 839, 850 (D. Md. 2015)
(discussing Rule 54(b)); Cezair v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., No. DKC-13-2928, 2014 WL 4955535, at *1 (D. Md.
Sept. 30, 2014) (same) (citing Fayetteville Investors v.
Commercial Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1469-70 (4th
Cir. 1991)). Rule 54(b) provides that "any order or
other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer
than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer
than all the parties ... may be revised at any time before
the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all
the parties' rights and liabilities." Fed.R.Civ.P.
54(b). In my June 28, 2019 Order, I gave Mr. Want an
opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint, which could
include any of his claims that have been dismissed without
prejudice, provided that the claims are appropriately
supported. Order 20. Therefore, my June 28, 2019 Order was
not a final judgment, and Want's instant motion is
governed by Rule 54(b). Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid
Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 624-25 (4th Cir. 2015)
(holding that a dismissal without prejudice for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted is not a final
order when the plaintiff could have amended his complaint to
cure pleading deficiencies).
Want has stated simply that he wants the court to reconsider
"each and every count that the court dismissed with
prejudice." Mot. Reconsider 1. In his supplemental
filing, he adds an additional sentence stating that "the
court has ignored several sections of Maryland Real Property
Code include §8-208" without any further
explanation or argument, and he complains that "the
court is biased against the plaintiff in this
Want's motion does not meet the narrow criteria for
granting a motion for reconsideration. See Potter v.
Potter, 199 F.R.D. 550, 552 n.1 (D. Md. 2001) ("A
motion for reconsideration is appropriate to 'correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence,' or where there has been an intervening change
in controlling law." (citations omitted)); see also
Shields v. Shetler, 120 F.R.D. 123, 126 (D. Co. 1988)
(observing that a motion for reconsideration "is not a
license for a losing party's attorney to get a
'second bite at the apple'"; cited in
Potter); Pinney v. Nokia, Inc., 402 F.3d 430, 452-53
(4th Cir. 2005) (stating in dicta that these "rules of
constraint... make sense when a district court is asked to
reconsider its own order" because '"[w]ere it
otherwise, then there would be no conclusion to motions
practice, each motion becoming nothing more than the latest
installment in a potentially endless serial that would
exhaust the resources of the parties and the court-not to
mention its patience"') (quoting Potter,
199 F.R.D. at 553); Cezair, 2014 WL 4955535, at *1
(noting that the standards for reviewing Rule 59(e) and 60(b)
motions provide guidance for reviewing a Rule 54(b) motion).
Because Mr. Want has failed to demonstrate grounds for
reconsideration, his motion is DENIED.
Mr. Want has attempted to file a Second Amended Complaint.
See ECF No. 64. However, it includes causes of
action that were dismissed with prejudice, it does not comply
with this Court's Local Rules as ordered, and it does not
appear to amend the claims that Mr. Want was given the
opportunity to amend. See Order 19-20. In a letter
that Mr. Want included with his motion to reconsider, he
asserts that he is being held to an improper level of
scrutiny, the court "seems to be biased,
" and that he cannot find samples of how to
state a claim. Ltr., ECF No. 61-1. I direct Mr. Want's
attention back to my Order, which explains the reasoning why
some of his claims must be dismissed with prejudice, even
though the court liberally construes his allegations.
See, e.g., Order at 5-6. Further, I provided the
elements of the claims and explained which elements of the
claims had no factual allegations to support them.
Id. I also suggest that Mr. Want review my
Memorandum and Order denying his motion for a preliminary
injunction, in which I concluded that he was not likely to
succeed on the merits of any of his claims. Mem. Oct 29,
2018, ECF No. 24. Finally, I direct Mr. Want to this
Court's website, www.mdd.uscourts.gov, where he
can find a copy of this Court's Local Rules as well as
some resources for filing without an attorney.
the circumstances, Mr. Want's amended complaint that he
dated August 4, 2019 and was entered on the docket on August
8, 2019, ECF No. 64, is not accepted as filed, but he shall
have one last opportunity to fix the errors and deficiencies
and file a signed Second Amended Complaint that can be served
upon the Defendants. Mr. Want may file a Second Amended
Complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order if he can
make plausible factual allegations to support the elements of
a claim for (1) misrepresentation and fraud; (2) race,
gender, or disability discrimination, in violation of the
FHA; or (3) retaliation in violation of the FHA. Mr.
Want's other claims have been dismissed with prejudice
and may not be repleaded. Successive failures to correct pleading
deficiencies may warrant dismissal of this case with
prejudice. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182
it is, this 31st day of October, by the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, hereby ORDERED
Want's Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 61, is DENIED;
Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Mr. Want may file a
signed Second Amended Complaint that corrects the
deficiencies of his August 4, 2019 filing; and
Clerk SHALL PROVIDE a copy of this Order to the parties.
 Although Plaintiff is representing
himself, his correspondence states that he is a
"PhD" and that he attended law school, but never
took the bar exam. Sept. 11, ...