Opinion
Civil Action No. 19-1332 (UNA)
07-23-2019
Kevin Fennick, Plaintiff, v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the order entered on May 20, 2019, dismissing this action without prejudice for insufficient pleading under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Mem. Op. [Dkt. # 3]. Since the motion was filed more than 28 days after entry of the final order, it is treated as a request for relief under Rule 60(b). See Hall v. CIA, 437 F.3d 94, 98 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (affirming district court's treatment of the plaintiff's untimely Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration as a Rule 60(b) motion).
In its discretion, a court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order or proceeding for any one of six enumerated reasons, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(6), none of which plaintiff has asserted. To justify reopening this matter, plaintiff must in any event show that his underlying claim is meritorious. He need not satisfy a particularly "high bar" but still must offer "a hint of a suggestion" that he might prevail if the case is reopened. Thomas v. Holder, 750 F.3d 899, 902 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting Marino v. DEA, 685 F.3d 1076, 1080 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Plaintiff's motion is no more illuminating than the dismissed complaint and therefore will be denied. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Date: July 23, 2019
/s/_________
United States District Judge