Holland v. Lions Gate Entertainment and Films

Background

Cory Darnell Holland, Sr., proceeding without a lawyer, brought three actions against Lions Gate Entertainment Corporation, Curtis J. Jackson II, also known as 50 Cent, Starz Entertainment Group, LLC, and Courtney A. Kemp. He alleged defamation, assault, and other related claims. In an earlier order, the court adopted a recommendation that granted the defendants’ summary-judgment motion in one action, granted a motion to dismiss in that action, and granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings in another action. Summary judgment is a ruling that resolves claims when the court determines there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial; a motion to dismiss and a motion for judgment on the pleadings challenge the legal sufficiency of claims at an earlier stage.

Holland’s Requests

Holland moved for reconsideration, which is a request asking the court to revisit an earlier ruling. He argued that he had recently obtained evidence that law-enforcement officials intentionally withheld and that previously unknown federal investigations affected all three actions. He also requested a stay and an extension of his deadline to appeal. The opinion says that his references to investigations by a coalition of states and the Office of the Inspector General were unclear and did not explain how those investigations would affect the earlier order.

Ruling

Judge Analisa Torres denied Holland’s motion for reconsideration. The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only for an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice; the court concluded that Holland had not shown a basis for reconsideration. The court also denied his request for an extension of time to appeal because he had not shown the required excusable neglect or good cause under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(A)(ii). The court did not prohibit Holland from appealing the earlier order or this order, but it certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The opinion does not separately explain the disposition of the stay request beyond its statement that Holland’s motion was denied. The court declined the defendants’ request to restrict Holland from filing new motions without first obtaining permission.