United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, St. Joseph Division
AND OPINION (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR
AMEND JUDGMENT, (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND
THE COMPLAINT AND ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT, (3) DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S RULE 52 MOTION, AND (4) DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S RULE 60 MOTION
D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE.
are Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc.
#64), Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint and Alter
or Amend Judgment Regarding ALJ Order (Doc. #65),
Plaintiff's Rule 52 Motion (Doc. #66), and
Plaintiff's Second Motion for FRCP 60 Relief for Fraud,
Misconduct, and Misrepresentation (Doc. #67). For the
following reasons, Plaintiff's motions are denied.
matter, Plaintiff asserted claims under the Freedom of
Information Act (“FOIA”) related to two FOIA
Requests - i.e., F2018-850930 and F2018-858557. Doc. #1. On
December 14, 2018, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims
related to FOIA Request F2018-858557 because Plaintiff
previously litigated claims associated with that request in
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia (“the D.C. Lawsuit”). Doc. #24. Between
the Court's December 14, 2018 Order and April 9, 2019,
Plaintiff filed, among other things, two Rule 60 motions and
a motion to reconsider, asking for relief from the
Court's December 14, 2018 Order. Docs. #27, 29, 50. Those
motions were denied. Doc. #49, 55.
April 9, 2019, the Court granted Defendant's motion for
summary judgment, and denied Plaintiff's cross-motion for
summary judgment. Doc. #55. Plaintiff immediately appealed
the Court's decision. However, on April 24, 2019,
Plaintiff filed yet another Rule 60 motion seeking relief
from the Court's December 14, 2018 Order. Doc. #60. The
Court denied Plaintiff's Rule 60 motion. Doc. #63.
May 3, 2019, and May 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed four additional
motions, which are discussed in further detail
infra. Docs. #64-67. Defendant opposes the motions.
Doc. #71. Plaintiff filed replies in further support of his
motions. Docs. #73-76. The motions are now fully briefed.
Plaintiff's Rule 59 Motion (Doc. #64)
asks the Court to “vacate or reverse its summary
judgment [order] and at least afford Plaintiff a trial”
pursuant to Rule 59(a) and 59(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Doc. #64, at 6. Rule 59(a) permits a court
to grant a new trial for jury trials and nonjury trials.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a). Nothing within Rule 59(a) permits the
Court to grant Plaintiff relief from entry of summary
judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for relief
under Rule 59(a) is denied.
59(e) governs a motion to alter or amend a judgment, and
provides a district court with the opportunity to correct
“manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence.” United States v. Metro. St.
Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006)
(citations and quotations omitted). Rule 59(e) does not
permit a party to rehash previously raised arguments.
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5
(2008) (citation mitted). Nor does Rule 59(e) allow a party
to offer or raise new legal arguments or theories that could
have been raised prior to entry of judgment. Metro. St.
Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d at 934.
first basis of his motion, Plaintiff points to a declaration
provided by Department of Labor (“DOL”) Senior
Attorney Todd Smyth that was filed in the D.C. Lawsuit in
2016. According to Plaintiff, Smyth's 2016 declaration
contained “many falsehoods, ” and Smyth
“knowingly falsely declared that he had personal
knowledge” and “provided evidence showing why he
lied.” Doc. #64, at 7-9, 26-28. Relying on his
Complaint and his briefing on various motions, Plaintiff
argues he “proved” Smyth's declaration was
false throughout this litigation. Id. at 9-10.
Plaintiff maintains Defendant, which supposedly knew about
Smyth's allegedly false representations, still chose
Smyth to submit a declaration in support of its motion for
summary judgment in this matter. Id. at 11.
According to Plaintiff, the Court “repeatedly
refrained from ever addressing or even acknowledging any
issue that Plaintiff presented regarding Smyth's perjury
or credibility” and improperly relied on Smyth's
declaration. Id. at 12-13 (emphasis in original).
argument fails because, first and foremost, he previously
raised this argument. In its April 9, 2019 Order, the Court
found Plaintiff relied on allegations and arguments - not
admissible evidence - to support many of his purported facts.
Doc. #55, at 3-4. In addition, Plaintiff, in attempting to
dispute Defendant's facts, did not cite anything in the
record to support his contention or did not cite admissible
evidence. Id. at 4. He also failed to respond to
some of Defendant's facts. Id. A party's
failure to properly support or challenge a fact violates
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(c) and the Court's
Local Rules. Id. Thus, the Court could not consider
Plaintiff's facts or his challenges to Defendant's
facts, including facts pertaining to Smyth's declaration,
that were not supported by the record. Id. The Court
also rejected Plaintiff's argument that Smyth's
declaration was not ...