Applewhaite v. Shinton ( 2012 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANDREW APPLEWHAITE,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 09-2195 (CKK)
v.
MATTHEW SHINTON, et al.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(October 10, 2012)
Plaintiff Andrew Applewhaite, proceeding pro se, filed suit alleging he was falsely arrested
for threatening then District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty. The Plaintiff was ultimately
convicted in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia of one count of misdemeanor attempted
threats to do bodily harm, which was upheld by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals upon
direct appeal. 5/15/2012 Mem. Opin., ECF No. [24], at 2. On May 15, 2012, the Court dismissed
Plaintiff’s common law false arrest claim as to all remaining Defendants for failure to state a claim.
Id. at 8. Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s [25] Motion for Reconsideration and [27] Motion
to Reopen Case. The Court construes Plaintiff’s motions as motions to alter or amend the judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Such motions are “disfavored,” and the Plaintiff
bears the burden of showing “extraordinary circumstances” warranting relief from final judgment.
Shoenman v. FBI, —F. Supp. 2d—, 2012 WL 1475983, at *2 (D.D.C. April 30, 2012).
Plaintiff’s motions essentially repeat many of the factual allegations in his earlier pleadings,
alleging misconduct by participants in Plaintiff’s underlying criminal case, including the Superior
Court Judge Anthony C. Epstein. As explained in the Court’s previous Memorandum Opinion, the
Plaintiff cannot pursue his false arrest claim unless and until his criminal conviction is vacated.
5/15/2012 Mem. Opin. at 6 (citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484-85 (1994)). Moreover,
the Superior Court is not a “lower court” in relation to the United States District Court as the
Plaintiff alleges. Pl.’s Mot. to Recons. at 3. Any challenge to Plaintiff’s conviction must be filed
in Superior Court as provided by D.C. Code § 23-110. Corley v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 709 F. Supp.
2d 1, 5 (D.D.C. 2009). The Court does not have the authority to investigate Plaintiff’s allegations
or review Judge Epstein’s rulings. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s [25] Motion for Reconsideration and
[27] Motion to Reopen Case are DENIED. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum
Opinion.
/s/
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2