Plaintiff appar ently has not rec eived a

copy of the Court’s August 29, 2009 1 Memorandum Opinion and O rder . The Court will direct the Cler k to mail a copy

to plaintiff at his curre nt addre ss of rec ord. 1 UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

) EUGENE MATHI SON, ) ) Plaintiff, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-2164 ( CKK) ) UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, ) ) Def endant. )

)
M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION On August 29, 2009, the Court dismi ssed this civil action on the g round that plaintiff la c ke d s tand ingto b ri nghis c la ims
. Mathison v. United States , _ _ F
. Su p p . 2 d _ _ , _ _ , 2 0 0 9 WL 1 27 07 57 8, at *7 (D .D .C. Au g . 2 9, 20 09 ). Th is m atte r i s b e fo re the Court on pla int if f’ s mo tio n to alter or amend judg ment under F ed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), which de fenda nt has opposed, and plaintiff’s re ply
. Plaintiff notes that the Court scre ened his c omplaint before docketing , see28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a ), and de clined to dismiss t he complaint either as fr ivolous or beca

use it fails to state a claim upon which r elief c an be grante d under 28 U .S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) (B ), 1915A(b) (1). See Pl.’s Mot. at 1-2. I n light of the Court’s approva l of his application to proce ed in f or ma pa up e ris , plaintiff ar g ues that def

endant’ s motion t o dismiss “oug ht not be g rante d and that the Court alterPlaintiff appea rs to be under

the mistaken impression that the Court’s scr eening 2 decision on initial review of a complaint pre vents the Court from re achinga diffe rent c onclusion on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he me ri ts o f t

he c omp la int

a ft e r t he pa rt ie s h ave ha d a

n o pp or tun ity to prese nt their respe ctive ar g uments. 2 or ame nd its judgment to allow the matter to proce ed.” Id. at 2. In th e a lte rn ativ e , if his 2 complaint is frivolous or fails to state a c laim upon which re lief ca n be g rante d, plaintiff “avers that the Court oug ht to order the Cler k to refund the money

paid to date to him as the c omplaint oug ht never

to have be en docke ted[.] ” Id. A motion under Rule 59(e ) is “disfavor ed and r elief f rom judg ment is gr anted only when the moving pa

rty establishes extraordinar

y circ umstances.” Niedermeie r v. Office of Max S. Baucus , 1 5 3 F. S u

p p . 2 d 2 3 , 2 8 (D
. D. C
. 2 0 0 1 ) ( ci t i n g An y an wut ak u v . M oo re , 151 F.3d 1053, 10 57 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 8) ); Cirals ky v . Cent. IntelligenceAgenc y , 355 F.3d 661, 671 ( D.C. Cir. 2004). “ARule 59(e) motion ‘is dis cre tionary ’ and ne ed not be grante d unless the district court finds that there is an ‘interve ning c hang e of c ontrolling law , the ava ilability of newevidenc e, or the nee d to corre ct a c lear err or or pr event manif

est injustice.’” Firestone v. Fire stone , 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (c itation omit ted). Plaintiff make s no such showing , and his motion will be denied. Se e, e .g., So lom on v . U niv . o f S. Cal ifo rn ia , 255 F.R.D. 303, 304 (D .D.C. 2009) (deny ing Rule 59( e) motion filed plaintiff who ne ither “ide ntifie[d] [a] chang e of c ontrolling law
or newevidenc e . . ., demonstrate[d] the nee d to corre ct a c lear err or, nor . . . e stablished extraordinary

circ umstances” ). The Court will deny

plaintiff’s re quest for r eturn of the filing f ee pa id to date. “[I ]f a prisoner br ings a

civil action . . . in forma pa uperis, [he] shall be require d to pay the full amount of a f iling fe e,” 28 U .S.C. § 1915(b)(1), a nd he shall pay

the fe e in monthly

installments. 283

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Plaintiff c ites no authority for the pr oposition t hat a pr isoner is entitled to a ref und of a f iling fe e upon dismissal of his complaint. The Court will deny

plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judg ment. An Orde r
acc ompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

/ s / C O LLE E N K O LLA R
- K O T E LLY Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge DATE: Oc tober 13, 2009