Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-14-05283/USCOURTS-caDC-14-05283-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 14-5283 September Term, 2015

FILED ON: MARCH 1, 2016

JAMES M. BLAND, III,

APPELLANT

v.

JEH CHARLES JOHNSON,

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:13-cv-00491)

Before: ROGERS and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal from the order of the United States District Court for the District of

Columbia was presented to the court and briefed and argued by counsel. The court has

accorded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a

published opinion. See D.C. Cir. R. 36(d). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court dismissing

appellant’s Title VII claims be affirmed for the reasons stated by the district court. See

Bland v. Johnson, 66 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2014). We must, however, reverse the

district court’s unexplained denial of Bland’s motion, filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

59(e) & 15(a), for alteration of the judgment and leave to amend his complaint to include

constitutional claims. We review the District Court’s denial of that motion for abuse of

discretion, Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 671 (D.C. Cir. 2004), but “outright refusal to

grant [a post-appeal motion for leave to amend] without any justifying reason appearing

for the denial is not an exercise of discretion; it is merely abuse of that discretion and

inconsistent with the spirit of the Federal Rules.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182

(1962). 

We stress that our reversal and remand reflects the district court’s lack of

explanation rather than a determination that Bland’s motion should have been granted;

we note that Bland had failed to raise his postjudgment claims either in his initial or his

amended complaint. Nonetheless, we are unable to affirm because we lack a sufficiently

obvious indication from the record that Bland’s motion was barred by an appropriate

reason. Id. We therefore remand to allow the district court to consider Bland’s motion

and provide a statement of reasons for granting or denying it. 

USCA Case #14-5283 Document #1601494 Filed: 03/01/2016 Page 1 of 2
No. 14-5283

Page 2

Pursuant to Rule 36 of this court, this disposition will not be published. The

Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the

disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See

Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. R. 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Ken Meadows

Deputy Clerk

USCA Case #14-5283 Document #1601494 Filed: 03/01/2016 Page 2 of 2