RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN, Chief Judge.
Based on the reasoning described in the Court's corresponding Opinion;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Dkt. No. 92) is DENIED . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Stay of Decision on Plaintiff's Motion to Amend or Alter Judgment (Dkt. No. 93) is DENIED .
OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and his Motion for Stay of Decision on Plaintiff's Motion to Amend or Alter Judgment. Both of these Motions simply restate Plaintiff's arguments in his Amended Complaint and other motions. All of the issues in this case were resolved by Magistrate Judge Greeley's Reports and Recommendations and this Court's Judgment issued October 10, 2000. The Court denies both of Plaintiff's Motions.
I. Introduction
The procedural history of Plaintiff's Complaint is long, but a recitation of this history and the Court's decisions are necessary to explain the Court's decisions denying Plaintiff's instant Motion to Stay and Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. On June 11, 1999, Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint alleging that since July 1994, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") has been illegally conducting a program of surveillance and harassment against Plaintiff in various states and cities across the country. Plaintiff asserted that this conduct disrupted his life and resulted in his physical, social, and psychological destruction. In this initial Complaint, Plaintiff asked for legal relief in the amount of ten million dollars and injunctive relief.
In Magistrate Judge Greeley's first Report and Recommendation, dated June 28, 1999 ("Report 1"), he recommended that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Plaintiff's Complaint with regard to alleged violations of the Eighth and Fifth Amendments be dismissed due to their frivolous nature. Report 1 did state that Plaintiff's apparent claims for injunctive relief for slander/libel and Fourth Amendment violations should not be dismissed. On July 21, 1999, Plaintiff responded to Report 1 with a long, rambling dissertation of the history of the FBI's counter intelligence program ("COINTELPRO"). Plaintiff then makes the leap of logic from those documented FBI activities to his own plight in life and concludes that only a FBI COINTELPRO — like program directed at him could be causing his problems. Among the problems cited by Plaintiff that are the alleged results of the FBI's activities are Plaintiff's loss of a worker's compensation claim, the return of an incorrectly addressed letter from Plaintiff to his parents, and Plaintiff's failure to receive a copyright certificate from the United States Copyright Office. (Plaint. Resp. to Report 1 at 13-16.) As evidence of the COINTELPRO — like program directed against him, Plaintiff states that while on the road a higher than normal number of law enforcement vehicles have been in his proximity and have passed by him at high rates of speed, ambulances have followed him, and that police have arrived at stores, libraries, restaurants, and gas stations while he was in these establishments. (Plaint. Resp. to Report 1 at 12-13.) In addition, Plaintiff complains of red police helicopters pursuing him in the national forest near Las Vegas. (Plaint. Resp. to Report 1 at 13); (Plaint. Affid. at 2, filed Aug. 16, 2000.)
Along with this Response to Report 1, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint and the Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint added two defendants, the United States Government and Unknown FBI Agents, and contained seven causes of action; three constitutional violations brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and four under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"). On August 11, 1999, Magistrate Judge Greeley granted Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint and Motion to Amend his Response to the Report and Recommendation. On October 15, 1999, this Court issued an Order adopting Report 1.
On March 4, 2000, Magistrate Judge Greeley issued a Notice of Impending Dismissal as to the Unknown FBI Agents unless Plaintiff identified and served them within 120 days of his Complaint. After several motions by Plaintiff and the Government regarding discovery and voluntary dismissal, the United States filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 17, 2000. In this Motion, the Government argued that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint failed because the statute of limitations had run and that this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction since the United States had not waived its sovereign immunity as to the Bivens claims or under the FTCA, and because the Amended Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. After a protracted period of wrangling over service of process and Motions for enlargement and time to respond, Magistrate Judge Greeley issued another Report and Recommendation ("Report 2") on July 14, 2000. In Report 2, Magistrate Judge Greeley recommended granting Defendants' dismissal motion because of the conclusory nature of Plaintiff's allegations and because the allegations rose to the level of delusional, irrational, and wholly incredible. On September 21, 2000, this Court adopted Report 2, and dismissed Plaintiff's entire Amended Complaint with prejudice.
On October 4, 2000, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). On October 23, 2000, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Stay of Decision on his Motion to Alter. In his Motion to Stay, he requested that the Court review the documents allegedly withheld from him by the FBI in his other case, Twomey v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Case No. 2:00-CV-041, before it rendered a decision on his Motion to Alter in this case.
II . Motion to Stay and Motion to Alter
In his Motion to Stay, Plaintiff requests that this Court review and decide the analogous Motion in his other case prior to deciding the instant Motion to Alter. The Court need not do so given the obvious irrational nature of Plaintiff's claims and allegations. The Court has read the transcripts of Plaintiff's Rule 16 Scheduling Conference and notes that despite Plaintiff's arguments to the contrary, he has never enunciated a motive for why the FBI or any government agency would initiate a disruption campaign against him. All of the instances Plaintiff claims as demonstrating that this campaign exists are normal occurrences of everyday life in modern society and are easily explained without resorting to conspiracy theories regarding the government.
In addition, Magistrate Judge Greeley conducted an in camera review of the documents submitted to him by the FBI in response to his July 21, 2000 Order. In his Report and Recommendation regarding Plaintiff's other case, Case No. 2:00-CV-041, Magistrate Judge Greeley notes that the FBI did redact small portions of the requested documents. (Report and Rec. July 14, 2000, at 2-3.) Magistrate Judge Greeley did, however, state in the Report and Recommendation that these redactions complied with 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b) and 552a. Since the Court is satisfied with Magistrate Judge Greeley's determination that the FBI documents do not support Plaintiff's allegations in his other case, and that they therefore do not support his allegations in this case, the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion to Stay.
Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). In his Motion, Plaintiff argues that this Court should not render final judgment until it has reviewed certain documents from his other suit, the Court should clarify its previous Judgment in this case to indicate what claims were dismissed and against which Defendants, and this Court's entry of judgment denying Plaintiff's Motion for Enlargement should be deleted given that Plaintiff filed his Response in a timely manner. Under Rule 59(e) "[a]ny motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment." Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). "Motions under Rule 59(e) must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or present newly discovered evidence." Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). When evaluating such motions, the federal courts have generally recognized three grounds for amending an earlier judgment : (1) to accommodate an intervening change in the law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993). A motion to alter or amend under Rule 59(e) may not be used as a means for the losing party to rehash previously considered arguments already rejected by the court. Torre v. Federated Mutual Ins. Co ., 862 F. Supp. 299, 300-01 (D.Kan. 1994).
Plaintiff's Motion to Alter fails any of the standards set forth for granting such a motion. Plaintiff cites to no intervening change in the law which would cause this Court to reconsider its previous Judgment. Although Plaintiff does raise the issue of the documents requested by Magistrate Judge Greeley for his in camera review in Plaintiff's other case, the Court accepts the determination of Magistrate Judge Greeley in his July 14, 2000 Report and Recommendation in Case No. 2:00-CV-041 that the documents and the redactions are in compliance with Title 5 of the United States Code. It appears, as the Defendants' attorney stated in the Rule 16 Conference, almost all the documents the FBI has in its file on Plaintiff are documents Plaintiff sent to the FBI regarding his other lawsuit. That these documents provide any new evidence to this Court to substantiate his case in this action is questionable at best, even if Plaintiff's allegations were not completely devoid of rationality.
Plaintiff has not raised, nor can the Court discern any clear error of law or indication of manifest injustice. In his Motion to File Transcript, Plaintiff raised the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal's standard for delusional allegations, citing to Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1999 (6th Cir. 1990), as support for his assertion that his allegations are not irrational. Unlike Lawler, Plaintiff's allegations lack all credibility or rationality. He recites chapter, page, and verse from several books and articles written by experts regarding the FBI's COINTELPRO operations and asserts that these writings support his proposition that the FBI is disrupting his life. Unlike the victims of those FBI operations, however, Plaintiff states unequivocally that he belongs to no domestic political organizations which would bring him under the FBI's scrutiny. (Rule 16 Trans. at 23.) In addition, he offers no reason for the FBI or any government agency to engage in such activity. Finally, under the Judgment issued by the Court, it is completely clear that all of Plaintiff's claims against all of the Defendants in this case were dismissed with prejudice. Thus, because the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion has met none of the requirements for altering or amending the Judgment under Rule 59(e), the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff also requests that the Court alter its Judgment to reflect his belief that the Court's denial of his Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Petition Re: Service of Process should not have been included in the Judgment because he filed his Response to Defendants' Response within the allotted fourteen days under Local Civil Rule 7.3. The Court disagrees that denying Plaintiff's Motion to Extend creates any doubt that his Response is in the record. Were it otherwise, this Court would have sent Plaintiff a notice rejecting his Response as untimely and including this rejection in the docket. No such notice or letter from the Court exists, and it is clear that Plaintiff's Response (Dkt. No. 82) is contained in the record and has been reviewed by the Court and Magistrate Judge Greeley in this case. The Court denied Plaintiff's Motion because it was outstanding at the time the Court issued its Opinion and Judgment in Plaintiff's case. Therefore, the Court will not alter or amend its Judgment on this facet of Plaintiff's case since such is unnecessary.