Lopez v. District of Columbia

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: March 8, 2018
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2016-1171
• Status: Published

Opinion

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«"«

IfgovtrmnentofUc.b„, g„ j„„j, j,j_^ j,,,, ^ f« US. ™, ^ ^1 »= M.,„ g, ..„g,^ „ .„, „f «~ . .h.„,g „, »gi„„ ^^ ^ P-...S.. .0 .g„ „ „ „, ,,_, ,„ P»p.«g ,.«I,,,™, „„.i«„, ^ •P.. -h. p«„„ ge goes t„e (which i.c.fe hi. .hi,i»,. .„„, ,j. ^^ S.P«„ C.„, „, h.„«„ p,,.„, S»e«,.,. he »*„,«, 3„,,., .,„„,, ___ »™« . cchwi..,™, ci.,.,|„ IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS the defendant's .otion for reconsideration, ECF No. 13, and DISMISSES DISMFS*?P

Date: March J, 2018 Roycte'C. Lamberth United States District Judge