Judges Memorandum 9/12/95

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


     William Thomas, et. al.       |          C.A. No. 94-2747
           Plaintiffs pro se,      |          Judge Charles R. Richey
                                   |
               v.                  |
                                   |
     The United States, et. al.    |
           Defendants.             |

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF CHARLES R. RICHEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' post-judgment Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's August 23, 1995 Memorandum Opinion and Order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants in the above-captioned case. The August 23, 1995 Opinion also denied partial reconsideration of the Court's April 12, 1995 Memorandum Opinion and Order. For the reasons detailed herein, the Court shall deny the Plaintiffs' instant Motion for Reconsideration.

1

DISCUSSION

The Court will not grant a Motion for Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry as a matter of course. "The primary reasons for reconsideration of judgment are 'an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice."' National Trust v. Department of State, 834 F. Supp. 453, 455 (D.D.C. 1993) (quoting Virgin Atlantic Airways. Ltd. v. National Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 113 s. ct. 67 (1992)), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds sub nom. Sheridan Kalorama Historical Ass'n v. Christopher, 49 F.3d 750 (D.C. Cir. 1995) . "A Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider is not simply an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled." New York v, United States, 880 F. Supp. 37, 38 (D.D.C. 1995) (per curiam). Nor are "Rule 59(e) rnotions vehicles for bringing before the court theories or arguments that were not advanced earlier." Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc. v United States Environmental Protection Agency, 705 F. Supp. 698, 701 (D.D.C.), vacated on other grounds, 707 F. Supp. 3 (D.D.C. 1989).

2

The Plaintiffs' arguments in support of their Motion for Reconsideration challenge the Court's holding that the Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tbe Plaintiffs contend that the Court's Opinion evidences "misunderstanding" of the Plaintiffs' allegations in this case. Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration at 1. Principally, the Plaintiffs argue that permits that they received from the Park Service authorize them to display their signs and flags in Lafayette Park in such a way as to exceed the height restrictions set forth in the governing Park Service Regulations, 37 C.F.R. 7.96 et seq. Also, they allege that the Defendants "pursued a pattern and practice 'designed to chill, disrupt or terminate the exercise of plaintiffs' constitutionally-protected expressive religious activities." Id. at 4.

The Court has carefully studied the Plaintiffs' Motion and arguments in support thereof; however, the Court observes that the Plaintiffs have merely reiterated argurnents already made throughout the voluminous pleadings in this case. Before the Court granted summary judgment for the Defendants in its August 23, 1995 decision, the Court understood and carefully considered the Plaintiffs' arguments, but ultimately rejected them in reaching its decision. In the interests of finality, the Court will not

3

entertain these same arguments again. See New York, 880 F. Supp. at 38. Moreover, the Plaintiffs have not pointed out an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice such that would justify the Court's reconsideration of its August 23, 1995 decision. See National Trust, 834 F. Supp. at 455. The Court therefore concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to set forth any grounds to warrant reconsideration of its August 23, 1995 Memorandum Opinion and Order.

Since the Plaintiffs rely on their religious convictions as another basis for their Motion for Reconsideration, the Court has decided to attach its Opinion and that of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the case of United States v. Galindez, of which the Thomases were a part.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall deny the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's August 23, 1995 Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Court shall issue an Order

4

of even date herewith consistent with the foregoing Memorandum Opinion.

September 12, 1995

(signed)
CHARLES R. RICHEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE