Cornish v. Dudas
813 F. Supp. 2d 147
D.D.C.2011Background
- Cornell Cornish moves for reconsideration of a 2010 order granting the defendants summary judgment on his reinstatement and Rehabilitation Act claims.
- Court previously held Cornish failed to exhaust administrative remedies for reinstatement and dismissed his constitutional claims.
- USPTO had construed Cornish's letter of intent to cease practice as a removal from the patent register; Cornish did not respond, and he was removed.
- Nine years later, Cornish sought reinstatement; the Office denied for lack of evidence of ability to render valuable service or to pass patent examinations.
- Cornish challenged the denial as arbitrary and capricious and raised constitutional arguments; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- Judge Roberts denied reconsideration, finding no intervening law, new evidence, or manifest injustice to warrant relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reconsideration is warranted. | Cornish contends errors in findings and law justify reconsideration. | Reconsideration lacks basis; arguments are relitigating prior issues. | Denied |
| Whether there was an exhaustio n of administrative remedies for reinstatement. | Cornish asserts exhaustion occurred and should enable review. | Cornish failed to exhaust; no final agency decision shown. | No reconsideration; exhaustion issue sustained as previously decided |
| Whether the court erred in finding the reinstatement claim not reviewable due to lack of final agency decision. | Cornish disputes the finality and seeks review of denial. | Review is barred without final agency decision and proper exhaustion. | Affirmed; no basis to disturb dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Cornish v. Dudas, 715 F. Supp. 2d 56 (D.D.C.2010) (reinstatement and constitutional claims in prior decision)
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C.Cir. 1996) (standard for reconsideration recognizing extraordinary circumstances)
- Wright v. F.B.I., 598 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C.2009) (motions for reconsideration disfavored; extraordinary circumstances required)
- Taitz v. Obama, 754 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D.D.C.2010) (evidence must be central to litigation to justify reconsideration)