McCurry v. Mccurry
2:23-cv-00141
| E.D. Tenn. | Oct 15, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Agness McCurry filed suit against her ex-husband Benjamin McCurry and his father Gary McCurry to enforce I-864 Affidavits of Support.
- The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granted Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
- Plaintiff sought to vacate the judgment, initially filing under Rule 60(b) but within the window for Rule 59(e), so the Court treated it as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment.
- Plaintiff argued the judgment was based on factual errors about the basis for her permanent residency, claimed newly discovered evidence, and alleged judicial bias and defendant misconduct.
- The Court found no basis for altering the judgment, citing Plaintiff’s judicial admission and record evidence that her green card was based on a VAWA self-petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Basis for Residency | Court erred in finding residency under VAWA, not I-130 | No error; Plaintiff admitted to VAWA basis | No error; Plaintiff's admission sufficient; argument fails |
| Court Mistakes | Judgment included various factual and procedural mistakes | Arguments are unsupported and do not affect outcome | No mistakes warranting relief under Rule 59(e) |
| Newly Discovered Evidence | New evidence (SNAP denial, texts) warrants vacatur | Not new; irrelevant and inadmissible | Evidence not new or material; motion denied |
| Judicial Bias/Misconduct | Judgment manifestly unjust due to bias and fraud | No factual support for claim | No manifest injustice shown; mere dissatisfaction insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 616 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2010) (clarifies circumstances for granting relief under Rule 59(e))
- Smith v. Hudson, 600 F.2d 60 (6th Cir. 1979) (motion to reconsider may be treated as Rule 59(e) motion)
- Wiley v. United States, 20 F.3d 222 (6th Cir. 1994) (hearsay inadmissible on summary judgment)
- Emmons v. McLaughlin, 874 F.2d 351 (6th Cir. 1989) (pre-judgment evidence is not newly discovered for 59(e) purposes)