Court Opinion

ID: 4252843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-03-08 17:00:58.503054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:43:38.339621
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                               FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

      henry LOPEZ, pro ie,

                  Plaintiff,

           V.
                                                        Case No: 16-cv-1171-RCL
      DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

                Defendant.

                                   memorandum opinion
          On August 2,2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to
            See EOF Nos, 11 and 12. Now before the Court is the defendant's motion for
  reconsideration. ECF No. 13, moving the Court to revise its finding that plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. §
  1983 claim against the District of Columbia survived dismissal. Upon consideration of
 defendant's motion, the opposition and reply thereto, the relevant law, and the record in this case
 the Court will GRANT defendant's motion and dismiss plaintiffs remaining claim.
 I-      background

         PUmitfH.„ Lopez filed ,„i, „de, 42 U.S.C. §1983                  fc Diet,la ofCoiunibi.
f«„ien „d M.,„                  B.„e,. He .lleged th., p„„
defe.d„ deleped fee.,e.,.,i„g d,„b„i„ be.ef.H ..d fh.,g, „
-ew befoee .. .d™i.,„d,e law Jddge. The Coop d™„ed „„da.d„, s„i. .g.i.a
Meyo, M.« B.„„ I. b,, .ff|a., e.p.el.g bee... fhe Dla„a ,f C.leabi. w« .....g, .
-eddefeod... |.,be Howe.ee, ibeCo.Pde.led tbea.«o...dle.l. fc el.ip ...g.,„,
.he Dwlde.OfColaabi.. The Co.„„,ed Ih.Mo L„,.z pleaded apl„ible See.lo. „„ .1.™
    under the theory thataDistrict ofColumbia "unwrittenpolicy" violated his constitutional right of
    access to courts.       EOF No. 12 at 5("Denial of access to the courts is recognized as a
   constitutional violation under§1983.")(c/ftngChristopherv. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403,415 (2002).
   II.     LEGAL STANDARD

           Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) governs acourt's reconsideration ofnon-final, or
   interlocutory orders. The rule provides that an interlocutory order "may be revised at any time
   before the ent^. ofajudgmentadjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities."
  Fed. R.Civ.P.54(b).  Anordergrantingamotionto   dismiss, inpart, isconsideredaninterlocutory
  order. Patzy v. Hochberg, 266 F.Supp.3d221,223 (D.D.C. 2017). Courts may permit revision of
  an interlocutoryorder"asjusticerequires." Cobellv. Norton, 224 F.R.D. 266,272 (D.D.C. 2004).
  Reconsideration "may be warranted when acourt has 'patently misunderstood the parties, made a
 decision beyond the adversarial issues presented, made an error in failing to consider controlling
 decisions or data, or where acontrolling or significant change in the law has occurred.'" Alt v.
 Carnegie Institution of Washington, 309 F.R.D. 77, 80 (D.D.C. 2015) {quoting U.S. ex rel.
 Westrick V. SecondChance BodyArmor. Inc., 893 F.Supp.2d 258,268 (D.D.C. 2012)).
 III.    ANALYSIS

      The Courthas learned two material facts since its Memorandum Opinion and Order issued
on August 2,2017, militating in favor ofdismissal ofplaintiffs claim. First, the defendant, in its
motion  forreconsideration, highlighted fortheCourtthatonJuly7,2017,theDistrictofCol^^^^
repealed Chapter 1ofTitle 7ofthe DistrictofCoiumbiaMunicipal Regulations ("DCMR") i„ its
entirety and adopted new regulations implementing Title 23 of the CMPA (the "Public Sector
Workers' Compensation" Program). Rule 153 ofthese new regulations provides thata"claimant
who believes that the Program has incorrectlycalculatedhis orher indemnity benefitmay request
                  hog,™.

               and the claimant may seek review ofthe calculations before the Superior Court of
  the District ofColumbia." Id. at §153 3
             D«« .fCotaBu «                 ^ g,.,                                          ^

 D»«.fC.,».u „„ i,». cbirfRM,ffi„                    ,,™,,e.
 ~ .!.« b.™„ g.              5„,                                              ^ ^
 S"ECFNo. 13.,7fcttjw«Uns„„v, Z.»«„./c,W,. ggg p                                     ^^^
 2m, rco^hipg p,.i„ i.                      ^        ^

 f«™..|.,C«.i,.,...M6«gp.p,p^^                                        ^                   ^
.p»m»,» „,.,ig.„.. p„,^,                        ^              ^                        ^

h™ «,» a..   „D,c.,    ^   ^
f.«,»,d--^ »„^.^„ »d aiPaa,^^

«.» cp„.p „a., p. ^ ^                                - 7in» Rul.^^
                                                                 1« w..
                                                                     ^ «,.p«pHo, „
      •m'»»™'»»Scl«mgeof|,„-p.„|ia„j,pppp^gp^.^^ This .gum.ai fe „!»,„»
    b»a.. «p, „ „ p„,p ,„
   those circumstances. &e Ali, 309 F.R.D. 77. 80 (D.D.C 20. St r            •
                                                              ) (reconsideration appropriate if
   court fails to consider controlling decisions or data.").
          N=«. Mr, L.p«                      ^          ^
  W. h. ,«                           ^                         ^             ^

  or-««. c™. I, „.                   ^             ^ ^^
 .Pml te,™ „                                   .             ^           ^ ^            ^

 "» .. <«, «c.,.».,
 *n he JW „, i„                  ^                  ^
Ac^rd,,.,,.                                             ^                              ^
disniiss the plaintiffs claim.

       ~"'"»"«P(«"»bc.ll.gi.,-d„p.<..es..ioW„„o,„,|,,,i.a,^^
bibb.,., •l«"«