Bond v. United States Department of Justice
286 F.R.D. 16
D.D.C.2012Background
- Bond filed suit in DC against DOJ and Washington Post defendants, asserting constitutional and civil-rights claims and related torts stemming from long-running disputes over his manuscript and public disclosures.
- Bond previously litigated related postures in Maryland and federal courts after a 2001 theft of his manuscript, with the Fourth Circuit affirming and awarding fees.
- USAO declined to investigate Bond’s perjury/judicial-misconduct referrals in 2004 and again in 2006; Bond pursued FOIA and “fraud upon the court” actions that were dismissed.
- Bond sought Supreme Court certiorari in 2008 and 2009, both denied, and he then filed this DC action on Sept. 23, 2010 for damages and mandamus relief.
- On Dec. 6, 2011, the court dismissed Bond’s Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Bond filed multiple post-judgment motions in Jan. 2012, which the court denied.
- The current memorandum denies Bond’s Rule 59(e) and related motions to alter, relief from judgment, discovery, and expedition as moot or unsupported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bond’s Rule 59(e) motion shows extraordinary circumstances. | Bond argues new evidence shows a conspiracy | Bond’s new material is not actually new or unavailable | Denied; no extraordinary circumstance. |
| Whether the New York Times article and identified defendants' names constitute new evidence warranting reconsideration. | Bond identifies new article and defendants | Evidence not new or properly supportive | Denied; not proper new-evidence under Rule 59(e). |
| Whether Rule 60(a) clerical-error relief applies. | Errors in the opinion warrant relief | Not ministerial errors; not a vehicle to change judgment | Denied; not proper ministerial errors under Rule 60(a). |
| Whether discovery requests are proper where the case was dismissed on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds. | Discovery could aid show of action | Discovery not a vehicle to rescue a doomed claim | Denied; not appropriate under Rule 27/56 framework. |
| Whether the court erred in applying Rule 12(b)(6) rather than Rule 56 in evaluating the complaint. | Should have used summary-judgment standard (Rule 56) | Rule 12(b)(6) appropriate given deficiencies | Not error; 12(b)(6) properly applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1993) (procedural rules not excused for pro se litigants; strict standards apply)
- Bowie v. Maddox, 677 F. Supp. 2d 276 (D.D.C. 2010) (liberal construction of pro se filings but no relief from procedural rules)
- Liberty Prop. Trust v. Republic Props. Corp., 570 F. Supp. 2d 95 (D.D.C. 2008) (Rule 59(e) extraordinary-circumstances standard)
- Niedermeier v. Office of Baucus, 153 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2001) (extraordinary-circumstances basis for Rule 59(e))
- Anyanwutaku v. Moore, 151 F.3d 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (definition of extraordinary-circumstances under Rule 59(e))
- Taylor v. DOJ, 268 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D.D.C. 2003) (limits on reconsideration for issues raised earlier)
- Messina v. Fontana, 439 F.3d 755 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (59(e) evidence and timeliness distinctions)
- Lurie v. Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, P.C., 787 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D.D.C. 2011) (59(e) motions not for new claims; must show new evidence)
- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1957) (pleading-stage standard; general allegations to be given benefit)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard for evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Pfizer Inc. v. Uprichard, 422 F.3d 124 (3d Cir. 2005) (Rule 60(a) ministerial-error limitations)
- Am. Trucking Ass’ns v. Frisco Transp. Co., 358 U.S. 133 (U.S. 1958) (Rule 60(a) relief cannot be used to alter judgments)