Walsh v. Hagee, 316 F.R.D. 1

Pro se plaintiff Walsh moves under Rule 59 for reconsideration of a prior order denying relief from a dismissal.
The earlier orders (Walsh I and Walsh II) denied relief because Walsh failed to show dispositive new evidence, reasserted rejected arguments, or extraordinary circumstances.
Walsh argues an intervening change in controlling law due to Klayman v. Obama, citing a 2013 DD.C. decision.
The court clarifies that the cited change is not a controlling or substantive change in law.
The court notes Walsh re-argued arguments already presented and that reconsideration is disfavored for relitigating old matters.
The court denies Walsh’s Rule 59 motion and any remaining motions as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there an intervening change in controlling law?	Walsh identifies Klayman as a new controlling authority.	Klayman does not change controlling law; it does not alter the prior reasoning.	No intervening change in controlling law.
Did Walsh present new evidence or manifest injustice warrant relief?	Walsh argues new arguments and evidence from Klayman support relief.	No new dispositive evidence or extraordinary circumstances were shown.	No new evidence or extraordinary circumstances shown.
Was reconsideration appropriate to relitigate old matters?	Walsh reiterates previously raised arguments and evidence.	Reconsideration is not for relitigating old matters.	Reconsideration denied as improper relitigation.
Do changes in other courts’ opinions affect this decision?	Walsh relies on Judge Leon’s Klayman decision as controlling.	Decisions from other district judges are not controlling law.	Not controlling; does not require relief.

Goodman v. Blount, 427 Fed.Appx. 8 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (intervening-change-and-relief standards for Rule 59)
Wright v. FBI, 598 F.Supp.2d 76 (D.D.C. 2009) (motions for reconsideration are disfavored and extraordinary)
Jung v. Assoc., of Am., Med. Cols., 226 F.R.D. 7 (D.D.C. 2005) (no relitigating old matters; reconsideration boundary)
Am. Elec. Power Co., Inc. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011) (district judges lack authority to render binding precedential decisions)
Walsh v. Hagee, 900 F.Supp.2d 51 (D.D.C. 2012), 900 F.Supp.2d 51 (D.D.C. 2012) (Walsh I; initial dismissal affirmation and reasoning)
Walsh v. Hagee, 10 F.Supp.3d 15 (D.C. Cir. 2013), 10 F.Supp.3d 15 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (Walsh II; reaffirmation of denial decisions)