Ad dit ion a l ba c kgro un d in fo rm atio n r e latin gto t he me ri ts o f t

he a c tio ns is s e t f

or th i n 1 Bailey v . U.S. Marshal Servic e, 584 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D.D .C. 2008). UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

___________________________________ ) COURTNEY ANT HONY B AI L EY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-0283 ( CKK) ) UNI TED STATES MARSHAL ) SER VI CE et al., ) ) De fe nd ants . )

___________________________________ ) ) COURTNEY ANT HONY B AI L EY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-0754 ( CKK) ) DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA e t al

. , ) ) De fe nd ants . )

___________________________________ ) M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION AN D O RD ER Pending be fore the Court are two motions i n eac h of these two c ases se ekingrelief from the judg ment. For

the re asons stated, the motions will be denied.

I . BA CKGROUND In these two re lated pro se actions for money damag es, plaintiff a lleg ed that his arr est on F e br ua ry 18 , 2 00 8, purs ua

nt t o a va lid wa rr ant i ssu e d b y

a fe de ra l c ourt , d e pr ive d h im o f h is F ourt h Ame ndme nt p ro te c tio n a g a ins t unre a so na ble arr e st a

nd c on sti tut e d c omm on

law f a lse
arr est and fa lse imprisonment. By final orde r ente red N ovember 4, 2008, the Court dismiss ed 1Had the motion bee n considere d under the standards a pplicable to a Rule 59( e) motion, 2 the re sult would have bee n no differ ent. Rule 59(e) motions “need not be grante d unless the district court finds that there is an interveningchang e of c ontrolling law , the ava ilability of new evidenc e, or the need to c orre ct a c lear err or or pr event manif

est injustice.” Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 ( D.C. Cir. 1996) (interna l quotation marks and citation omitted). A Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider is not intended to provide an opportunity to rea rgue fa cts and theories upon whic h a cour t has alre ady

ruled. New Y

ork v. U nited States , 880 F.Supp. 37, 38 (D.D.C. 1995). “ Only

if the movingparty

prese nts new fa cts or a c lear err or of law

which ‘compe l’ a c hang e in the cour t’s rulingwill the motion t o rec onsider be grante d.” Id . at 39. A Rule 59(e) motion is also not a vehic le for pr esentingtheories or arguments that could have been advanc ed ea

rlier. See W

.C. &A.N. Miller Companies, 173 F.R.D. 1, 3 (D .D.C. 1997).

-2- the c a se s a ft e r c on c lud ingthat th e pla int if f h a d n ot a lle g e d f

a c ts s uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

a re a so na ble infere nce that his Fourth Amendment pr otections had be en violated, or that he had be en subjected to fa lse arr est or imprisonment. Bailey V. U.S. M arshal Service

, 584 F. Supp. 2d at 13 3 ( “ B a ile y

a c kn ow le dg e s th at hi s arr e st o n F e br ua ry 18 , 2 00 5 w a s ma de purs ua nt t o a ‘v a lid
arr est war rant.’” ) (quotingthe Compl. in C ivil Action 08-283 at 8). Twenty day s later, plaintiff move d for r econside ration. A motion made unde r Rule 59(e ) of the F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure to a lter or amend a judgment, must be filed within 10 da y s a ft e r e ntr

y of the jud g me nt. F e d. R. C iv. P. 9 (e ). B e c a us e the mot ion

wa s n ot f ile d w ith in 10 da y s a ft e r e ntr

y of the jud g me nt a

nd be c a us e e xten sio n o f t

he tim e , e ve n o n mo tio n, is
e xpre ssl y pr oh ibi te d b y

Rul e 6(b) (2 ), the pla int if f’ s mo tio n w a s tr e ate d a s o ne ma de un de r R ule 60(b), f or re lief fr om judgment or order
. See Compute r Professionals for Social Responsibility v. U.S. Sec ret Servic e, 72 F.3d 897, 903 ( allowingan untimely motion under Rule 59(e) to be considere d as a motion under Rule 60(b) if it states grounds for r elief unde r the latter rule.) A fter consideringplaintiff’s ar guments under the sta ndards f or Rule 60(b)( 1) (f

or mistake) a

nd (b)( 6) (for any other re ason), plaintiff’ s motion was denied. See Slip op. Ba ile yv . U .S . M ar sh all 2-3-

Servic e, 2008 WL5133958 (D.D.C. De c. 5, 2008). Te n day s later, on De cembe r 15, 2008, the pla int if f f ile d a se c on d s uc h mo tio n. On Janu ary 2, 20 09 , th e pla int if

f f ile d a no tic e of a pp e a l in the se c a se s. Th e n, on

F e br ua ry 23 , 2 00 9, he fi le d a

thi rd mot ion fo r r e lie f f

ro m th e jud g me nt, this ti me expressly

invoking Rule 60(b) (6).

I I . DI SCUS SI ON I f the plaintiff intende d the Dec ember 15 motion as one under Rule 59( e), it is timebarr ed. A Rule 59(e ) motion is available only to alter or a

mend a judgment, and must be filed within tend day s of the entr y of the judg ment. The judg ment in these ca ses was e ntere d No ve mbe r 4 , 2 00 8. Th e De c e mbe r 1 5 mo tio n a lso c ann ot b e c on sid e re d a mot ion un de r R ule 54 (b ), wh ic h is lim ite d to re c on sid e ratio n o f o rd e rs that are “ su bje c t to re vis ion

at any tim e befor e the e ntry

of judg ment adjudicatingall the claims and the rig hts and liabiliti es of a ll the pa rt ie s. ” F e d. R. C iv. P. 5 4(b) . A c c or din g ly , th e De c e mbe r 1 5 a nd F e br ua ry 23 mot ion s a

re bo th proper ly considere d as ones made under Rule 60(b)(6)
. Rule 60(b) “ was intende d to preser ve the de licate ba lance betwee n the sanc tity of final judgme nts . . .and the ince ssant command of the court’s c onscienc e that justice be done in light of all the fa cts.” Good Luck Nursing Home v . Harris, 636 F.2d 572, 577 ( D.C. Cir. 1980) (interna l quotation marks and citation omitted). Subsection (b)( 6) allows a c ourt to alter or provide re lief fr om a final orde r “upon suc h terms as a re just,” f or any “re ason justifying r elief from the ope ration of the judgment.” F ed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). The Supreme Court has state d that g iven the bre adth of subsec tion (b)(6), it should only be used in “ extraordinary circ umstances.” See P ioneer Inv estment Se rv. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc . Limited Partnership, 507-4-

U. S. 3 80 , 3 93 (1 99 3) ; see also, Kra me r v . G ate s, 481 F.3d 788, 792 ( D.C. Cir. 2007) (statingthat the re medy

should be “sparingly

used”)
. Pla int if f’ s su c c e ssi ve Rul e 60 (b )( 6) mot ion s me re ly re argue the the or

y he or ig ina lly
a dv anc e d. Th e y

do no t pr ov ide a

ba sis fo r gra

nti ngre lie f f

ro m th e jud g me nt. Th e F ourt h Amendment guara

ntees that a

plaintiff shall not be ar

rested e x cept upon pr obable c ause. The plaintiff has not asse rted that his ar rest on F ebrua

ry 18, 2008 was without probable cause . Rathe r, he a dv anc e s a

the or y that th e arr e st w a s v oid

— a nd the re fo re un c on sti tut ion a l — beca use the a rre sting off

icer s did not observe rule s of comity betwee n two sovere igns. Rules of comity betwee n sovere igns do not e stablish private rights under the F ourth Amendment a nd do not affor d a private ca

use of a ction for a

constitutional tort. P laintiff’s argument, no matter how often repeate d, rema ins unavailing . Plaintiff has not offe red a rea sonable ba sis for re considering or altering the deter

mination that he has not stated a c laim under Sec tion 1983 or Bi v e ns a g a ins t ind ivi du a l of

fi c e rs fo r a

vio latio n o f h is F ourt

h Ame ndme nt a

nd c omm on la w p ro te c tio ns a g a ins t
un l aw f u l ar r e s t s . A c c o r d i n g l y, i ti s h e r e b y ORDERED that the plaintiff’ s pendingmotions for rec onsideration and r elief f rom the judgme nt be, and he reby

are , DENI ED.
/ s / C O LLE ENK O LLA R
- K O T E LLY Da t e: Ap ri l 2 , 2 0 0 9 Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge