| Date Filed | Doc # | Docket Text |
|
| 2022-06-22 | 1 | COMPLAINT against UNITED STATES TREASURY DEPARTMENT ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 202438) filed by CHARLENE COLLINS LEE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Summons)(zjm) (Entered: 06/29/2022) |
| 2022-06-29 | | SUMMONS Not Issued as to UNITED STATES TREASURY DEPARTMENT (zjm) (Entered: 06/29/2022) |
| 2022-07-06 | 2 | MEMORANDUM OPINION: For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum Opinion, the Court will sua sponte dismiss the complaint without prejudice. A separate order will issue. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 7/6/2022. (lcrdm2) (Main Document 2 replaced on 7/6/2022 for typo) (kt). (Entered: 07/06/2022) |
| 2022-07-06 | 3 | ORDER: For the reasons stated in the Court's Memorandum Opinion, Dkt. 2 , it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice and that judgment is hereby ENTERED in favor of Defendant. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 7/6/2022. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 07/06/2022) |
| 2022-07-27 | 4 | Letter from CHARLENE COLLINS LEE. "LET IT BE FILED" by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 7/27/2022. (zjm) (Entered: 07/27/2022) |
| 2022-08-14 | | MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiff's letter, Dkt. 4 , the Court will treat Plaintiff's letter as a motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order dated July 6, 2022, Dkt. 3 , under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Rule 59(e) permits a party to file "[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment" within "[twenty-eight] days after the entry of the judgment." A motion under Rule 59(e) "is discretionary and need not be granted unless the district court finds that there is an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Ciralsky v. CIA , 355 F.3d 661, 671 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted). Such motions are "generally disfavored" absent "extraordinary circumstances." Dage v. Johnson , 537 F. Supp. 2d 43, 48 (D.D.C. 2008). Here, Plaintiff has failed to identify any extraordinary circumstances, changes in controlling law, or errors made by the Court that would warrant relief under Rule 59(e). As the Court explained in dismissing Plaintiff's complaint, "Plaintiff's complaint fail[ed] to comply with Rules 8 and 12(b)(6) because it d[id] not allege any facts that would allow the Court to discern the substance of Plaintiff's claims or to determine whether, if true, her allegations would entitle her to relief." Dkt. 2 at 2. Plaintiff now asserts that the "varied federal and state litigation" documents attached to her complaint establish "a need for intervention in Maryland with [her] case to find all resources personal tied up in federal hands by... the U.S. Secret Service as handlers of [her] currency and the recipient, the U.S. Treasury Department." Dkt. 4 at 1. But "where undifferentiated documents are submitted along with a complaint that is itself lacking in detail," the Court is "not responsible for hunting through [those documents] in search of material potentially helpful to a party's case." Nichols v. Vilsack , 13-cv-1502, 2015 WL 9581799, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 30, 2015). And, in any event, the Court cannot discern a cognizable cause of action or a basis for this Court's jurisdiction from the materials attached to Plaintiff's complaint. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 8/14/2022. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 08/14/2022) |
 Hide Docket Events |
|
