Pilot v. Trump ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    MICHAEL CHARLES PILOT,
    Plaintiff,
    v.                             Case No. 1:19-cv-00251 (TNM)
    DONALD TRUMP,
    Defendant.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    On January 30, 2019, pro se Plaintiff Michael Pilot filed his Complaint in this case. See
    generally Compl., ECF No. 1. In his Complaint, he sued President Donald J. Trump for a
    violation of the First and Fifth Amendments because the Deputy Clerk of the D.C. Circuit— not
    the D.C. Circuit judges themselves—signed the order dismissing an earlier appeal. 
    Id. at 37.
    And for that same reason, he brought a claim, again against the President, under the Hostage Act
    and Administrative Procedure Act. 
    Id. at 39–42.
    The Court held that Mr. Pilot’s Complaint
    failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Mem. Op. at 2; ECF No. 4. The Court
    also noted Mr. Pilot’s repeated pattern of attempting to re-litigate old claims by filing new
    actions. 
    Id. Mr. Pilot
    has now filed a motion for reconsideration challenging the Court’s dismissal of
    his lawsuit against President Donald J. Trump. ECF No. 6. “As a general matter, courts treat a
    motion for reconsideration as originating under Rule 59(e) if it is filed within 28 days of the
    entry of the order at issue and as originating under Rule 60(b) if filed thereafter.” Owen-
    Williams v. BB & T Inv. Servs., Inc., 
    797 F. Supp. 2d 118
    , 121–22 (D.D.C. 2011). Courts may
    grant a Rule 59(e) motion only “(1) if there is an ‘intervening change of controlling law;’ (2) if
    new evidence becomes available; or (3) if the judgment should be amended in order to ‘correct a
    clear error or prevent manifest injustice.’” Leidos, Inc. v. Hellenic Republic, 
    881 F.3d 213
    , 217
    (D.C. Cir. 2018) (quoting Firestone v. Firestone, 
    76 F.3d 1205
    , 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). No such
    reason warrants reconsideration here: Mr. Pilot identifies no change in law and provides no new
    evidence. Nor is a manifest injustice apparent from the record.
    For these reasons, Mr. Pilot’s Motion for Reconsideration will be denied. A separate
    order will issue.
    2019.03.01
    13:49:48 -05'00'
    Dated: March 1, 2019                                 TREVOR N. McFADDEN
    United States District Judge
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2019-0251

Judges: Judge Trevor N. McFadden

Filed Date: 3/1/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/1/2019