The opinion of the court was delivered by: ROSEMARY COLLYER, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b),
Plaintiff Dwayne Jeffers asks the Court to reconsider its
dismissal of his Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") Complaints
Nos. 02-09 and 03-03, which alleged that the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") discriminated and retaliated
against him. The two EEO complaints were dismissed for failure of
Mr. Jeffers to exhaust his administrative remedies due to his
failure to "participate at all" in the investigation of his
complaints. Jeffers v. Chao, No. 03-1762 (RMC), Memorandum
Opinion on Motion to Dismiss, slip. op. 2 (D.D.C. Sept. 21,
2004). On reconsideration, Mr. Jeffers attacks Defendants'
failure to clarify in the first instance that he, in fact,
allowed an investigator to interview him twice in connection with
EEO Complaint 02-09, and participated in a few weeks of
settlement efforts concerning both complaints in January 2003.
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration will be denied. The
information now proffered by Mr. Jeffers is not "new information"
within the meaning of the Rule 59 because it was known and
available to him when he filed his opposition to Defendants'
motion to dismiss. See Lightfoot v. Dist. of Columbia,
355 F. Supp. 2d 414, 421 (D.D.C. 2005) ("Rule 59(e) motions are not
granted if the court suspects the losing party is using the motion as an
instrumentality for arguing the same theory or asserting new
arguments that could have been raised prior to final judgment."
(citing Kattan v. Dist. of Columbia, 995 F.2d 274, 276 (D.C.
Cir. 1993) (citations omitted)). Similarly, the information now
proffered by Mr. Jeffers fails to meet the requirements of Rule
60(b) because it does not establish misrepresentation, mistake or
that the original judgment was manifestly unjust. See Good Luck
Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris, 636 F.2d 572, 577 (D.C. Cir.
1980). On the merits, the additional information does not change
the result: the PBGC was unable to thoroughly investigate EEO
Complaint Nos. 02-09 and 03-03 because Mr. Jeffers adamantly
refused to participate.
A complete recitation of Mr. Jeffers's participation in the
administrative EEO processing of his various complaints
demonstrates his utter disregard for that process.
This complaint was filed by Mr. Jeffers on September 28, 1999,
challenging a non-selection for promotion and alleging
retaliation. Raymond Desmone was appointed to investigate the
non-selection and he called Mr. Jeffers on February 21, 2000 to
schedule an interview in the next week. Mr. Jeffers said that his
schedule was too uncertain to make an appointment at that time,
but that he would call back on February 24, 2000 to schedule the
appointment. Mr. Jeffers failed to make that call, so Mr. Desmone
called him on February 29, 2000, and left a message. Mr. Jeffers
called back and left a voice message for Mr. Desmone that he was
too busy to meet that week and he would call again about
scheduling a meeting in the week thereafter. No such call was
made. Mr. Desmone left another message on Mr. Jeffers's voice
mail on March 9, 2000, but received no return call. Mr. Desmone finally reached Mr. Jeffers on March 14, 2000,
and scheduled an appointment for an interview for 10:30 a.m. on
March 22. At 8:30 a.m. on March 22, Mr. Desmone again called Mr.
Jeffers to remind him of the interview and learned from Mr.
Jeffers's voice-mail message that Mr. Jeffers was out of the
office until March 23. Mr. Desmone left a voice message asking
Mr. Jeffers to contact him immediately and also sent a letter by
first class mail requesting an interview appointment. With no
responses by April 3, 2000, Mr. Desmone sent a certified letter
return receipt requested, which was returned "Unclaimed" after
two delivery attempts. On April 20, 2000, Mr. Desmone sent yet
another letter to Mr. Jeffers, certified and return receipt
requested and also by regular mail, with summaries of the
statements of two PBGC witnesses for his rebuttal. The certified
letter was later returned as "Refused." Mr. Desmone completed his
investigation without any information from Mr. Jeffers.
Donald Mirsch was appointed to investigate Mr. Jeffers's
retaliation claim. Mr. Mirsch called Mr. Jeffers on July 3, 2000,
to ask for a meeting as soon as possible to take Mr. Jeffers's
statement concerning his charge. Mr. Mirsch left a message,
suggesting that they meet on July 11, 2000. Thereafter on July
13, 2000, Mr. Mirsch sent a letter to Mr. Jeffers, by regular and
certified mail return receipt, to explain that Mr. Mirsch had
called the phone numbers at Mr. Jeffers's home and office and
left messages without response. Mr. Mirsch enclosed a series of
written questions for Mr. Jeffers to answer. The certified mail
was returned "Unclaimed" but the regular mail was not. Mr.
Jeffers never responded to any of these calls or to the letters.
B. EEO Complaints 02-01 and 02-09
Mr. Jeffers filed EEO Complaint 02-01 on March 8, 2002, and it
was assigned to Norma White to investigate. On June 12, 2002, Mr.
Jeffers filed EEO Complaint 02-09. At some unspecified time in July 2002, Ms. White interviewed Mr. Jeffers
in connection with Complaint 020-1; he says that the interview
also touched on Complaint 02-09. Complaints 02-01 and 02-09 were
formally consolidated under the number 02-09 after that interview
and Ms. White was assigned to investigate both. On July 25, 2002,
Ms. White sent a draft affidavit to Mr. Jeffers, based on their
interview. On August 2, 2002, Mr. Jeffers asked Ms. White to
postpone preparation of a final affidavit because he wanted to
amend EEO Complaint 02-09. Ms. White wrote to Mr. Jeffers on
September 7, 2002, to advise him that she needed to re-start the
investigation. She interviewed Mr. Jeffers on September 18, 2002.
However, on September 23, 2002, Ms. White further advised Mr.
Jeffers that EEO Complaint 02-09 was put "on hold" pending
discussion of his additional issues, so she would not be
forwarding a draft affidavit immediately. Ms. White sent the
draft affidavit to Mr. Jeffers's representative, Robert Perry, on
December 25, 2002, and asked him to return a signed copy within
The progress, or lack thereof, on EEO Complaint 02-09
thereafter coincided with Mr. Jeffers's EEO Complaint 03-03.
Mr. Jeffers filed this complaint on December 17, 2002, and it
was assigned to John Raymos to investigate.
In January 2003, a representative from the PBGC initiated
settlement discussions with Messrs. Perry and Jeffers in an
attempt to achieve a global settlement of his outstanding EEO
complaints. For a period of approximately three weeks, the
parties exchanged proposals but these efforts failed. Mr. Jeffers
states that he did not return the affidavit forwarded to him by
Ms. White in EEO Complaint ...