Mosley v. Chen

E.D. Missouri

Mosley v. Chen

DecidedNovember 27, 2024

Docket4:24-cv-01463

StatusUnknown

This text of Mosley v. Chen (Mosley v. Chen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mosley v. Chen, (E.D. Mo. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL B. MOSLEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:24-cv-01463-MTS ) COLLIN L. CHEN, MD, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This closed matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s letter, which the Court construes as a Motion for Reconsideration. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not met his burden to warrant reconsideration of the dismissal of this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Arnold v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 627 F.3d 716, 721 (8th Cir. 2010) (“Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” (quoting Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988))); see also Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Companies, Inc., 935 F.3d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 2019) (district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied request to add evidence on citizenship previously known to the plaintiffs as part of a motion for reconsideration). Further, the Court cannot advise Plaintiff whether it would have jurisdiction over the action if Plaintiff refiled it in this Court. See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A district court lacks the power to act as a party’s lawyer, even for pro se litigants.”); see also KCCP Tr. v. City of N. Kan. City, 432 F.3d 897, 899 (8th Cir. 2005) (explaining that Article II of the Constitution prohibits federal courts from providing “advisory opinions”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Doc. [7], is DENIED. Dated this 27th day of November 2024. Th wATTHew T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL B. MOSLEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:24-cv-01463-MTS ) COLLIN L. CHEN, MD, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This closed matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s letter, which the Court construes as a Motion for Reconsideration. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not met his burden to warrant reconsideration of the dismissal of this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Arnold v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 627 F.3d 716, 721 (8th Cir. 2010) (“Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” (quoting Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988))); see also Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Companies, Inc., 935 F.3d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 2019) (district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied request to add evidence on citizenship previously known to the plaintiffs as part of a motion for reconsideration). Further, the Court cannot advise Plaintiff whether it would have jurisdiction over the action if Plaintiff refiled it in this Court. See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A district court lacks the power to act as a party’s lawyer, even for pro se litigants.”); see also KCCP Tr. v. City of N. Kan. City, 432 F.3d 897, 899 (8th Cir. 2005) (explaining that Article II of the Constitution prohibits federal courts from providing “advisory opinions”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Doc. [7], is DENIED. Dated this 27th day of November 2024. Th wATTHew T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mosley v. Chen, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mosley-v-chen-moed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack