United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
DANIEL P. JORDAN, III,
This closed pro se case is before the Court on a number of
motions: Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Reversal , Plaintiff's
Motion for Answers , Defendants' Motion to Strike , and Plaintiff's
Motion and Request for a United States Justice Department Investigation and
Review-Washington, D.C. . For the reasons that follow, the motion to strike
is granted, and the remaining motions are denied.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Plaintiff Luther Williams, Jr., filed a Complaint  against the
United States on June 6, 2014; he filed an Amended Complaint  on June 19,
2014. In his pleadings, Williams complained that the Department of Veterans
Affairs failed to inform him that his now-former spouse had various health and
other insurance-related benefits. He asserted that had he known, he would have
avoided certain damages, including the foreclosure of his home in 1998.
The United States moved to dismiss , and the Court dismissed
Williams's claims on November 5, 2014. Order . Williams thereafter moved for
reconsideration  and for discovery , and the United States moved to
strike the request for discovery . Finally, Williams moved for review of the
dismissal of his case "by the newly appointed Attorney General for the United
States Department of Justice in Washington D.C., or by the President of the
United States of America and his staff." Mot.  at 4.
A. Motion for Reconsideration and Reversal 
The Court construes Williams's motion for reconsideration as a Rule
59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. Reconsideration under Rule 59(e)
"is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly." Templet v.
HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004). And "such a motion is
not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that
could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment." Id.
(citing Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990)).
Instead, "a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) must clearly
establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly
discovered evidence and cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and
should, have been made before the judgment issued." Rosenzweig v. Azurix
Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 863 (5th Cir. 2003) (citations and internal quotation
Williams's motion reveals no basis for reconsideration. Williams
asserts that the injuries stemming from the foreclosure are "ongoing
continuously." Mot.  at 1. But assuming the continuing-tort doctrine applies
at all in FTCA cases, see In re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Prods.
Liability Litig., 646 F.3d 185, 191 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam), Williams
has not established its applicability to the facts of this case. "[C]laim
accrual under the FTCA is based on awareness of the injury, not when the alleged
wrongful conduct ends." Id.
In this case, Williams was aware of the allegedly wrongful foreclosure
no later than 2000, when the previous litigation surrounding the foreclosure was
filed. And he became aware of his claimed entitlement to benefits that allegedly
could have prevented the foreclosure in 2010. His failure to file an SF-95
within two years renders his claim relating to insurance benefits time-barred.
Williams has not demonstrated that the Court's conclusion on this point involved
a manifest error of law or fact.
The Motion for Reconsideration  is denied.
B. Motion for Answers  and Motion to Strike 
Williams's motion for answers contains five questions he would like
answered, but it is not clear whether he seeks answers from the Court or the
Department of Veterans Affairs. Mot.  at 1. Either request would be denied.
First, Williams has no right to obtain discovery in this closed case. Second, he
is not entitled to answers from the Court beyond the explanations provided in
the Court's orders. Defendants' Motion to Strike  is therefore granted, and
Williams's Motion  is denied as moot.
C. Motion and Request for a United States Justice Department
Investigation and Review-Washington, D.C. 
Finally, Williams asks the Court to have the Department of Justice or
the President review the unfair dismissal of his case. Williams cites no statute
or case that would permit the Court to order a review of his case by the DOJ or
the President, and ...