Kelly v. Bisignano

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JASON L. KELLY, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 4:24 CV 214 RWS
)
FRANK J. BISIGNANO, 	)
Commissioner of Social Security, 	)
)
Defendant, 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On September 25, 2025, I issued and order and judgment dismissing
Plaintiff Jason L. Kelly’s complaint. On October 6, 2025, Kelly filed a motion
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment.
Rule 59(e) motions serve a “limited function of correcting manifest
errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Innovative
Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d
1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (cleaned up). Rule 59(e) motions “cannot be used
to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which
could have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment.” Id. Rule 59(e)
is not a vehicle to repeat arguments previously made to and rejected by the
Court. Voss v. Hous. Auth. of the City of Magnolia, 917 F.3d 618, 626 n.6
(8th Cir. 2019)).
Case: 4:24-cv-00214-RWS Doc. #: 38 Filed: 10/30/25 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
In his motion, Kelly seeks to relitigate the dismissal of his claims related
to the termination of his employment with the Social Security Administration
(the “SSA”). Kelly’s employment was terminated in 2017. He did not file a
charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding his
termination until 2022. I dismissed any claims related to Kelly’s termination
based on his failure to timely administratively exhaust these claims. Kelly’s
motion to reconsider asserts that there were mistakes or omissions of fact in
my order concerning his 2017 termination. My order did not contain any
mistake of a material fact. Moreover, any alleged mistake of fact was not
material because Kelly’s claims regarding his 2017 termination was dismissed
for failing to timely administratively exhaust these claims.
Kelly also asserts that my dismissal order failed to address his “motion”
filed on July 29, 2025, to join a new unrelated claim to the present lawsuit. By
dismissing the complaint my order implicitly denied any other pending
motions. However, to be explicit, I will hereby deny Kelly’s motion to join a
claim from his EEOC Appeal No. 2024005047.
The document Kelly filed on July 29, 2025, was entitled “Plaintiff’s
additional Supplemental Complaint in response to the EEOC Appellate
Decision No. 2025001564 regarding EEOC appeal No. 2024005047 and
Case: 4:24-cv-00214-RWS Doc. #: 38 Filed: 10/30/25 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Continued Objections to Defendants Motion to Dismiss.” In that document
Kelly asserted that he wanted to add an additional claim to his original
complaint. The new claim concerned an interaction he had with an SSA
human resources employee. Kelly asserts that on October 18, 2023, he was
contacted by Howard Allen with Social Security human resources through a
University of Missouri – St. Louis alumni platform called Handshake. Kelly
alleges that Allen asked Kelly if he was interested in a job with SSA and
supplied a link to the application process and Kelly filled out an application.
Kelly asserts that he did not hear from SSA about his application for several
months. Allen then contacted Kelly and stated that the Handshake activity
was just “an interest and data collection effort.” ECF No. 27 at 5. Kelly
asserts that the process was about a “fake job” and that it was “a very hurtful
message to send and gave false hope and wasted plaintiffs’ time that could
have been used to apply for a job that exists and was being hired for.” Id.
Kelly conclusively alleges that this interaction “continues a pattern of
discrimination, harassment, and unfair and illegal treatment under 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-16b.” Kelly does not identify any specific basis of discrimination as for
this claim (race, color, religion, etc.). Nor does he assert any facts that would
support a claim of employment discrimination from this interaction. The only
Case: 4:24-cv-00214-RWS Doc. #: 38 Filed: 10/30/25 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
document in support of this new claim was a letter from the EEOC titled a
“Decision on Request for Reconsideration” in Appeal No. 2024005047. ECF
No. 27 at 2-3. The decision simply states that Kelly’s request for
reconsideration was denied. Kelly’s proposed supplemental claim fails to
state a claim of discrimination related to his EEOC appeal. As a result, his
request to “supplement” his case by adding this claim is denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Jason L. Kelly’s motions to
alter or amend judgment [31 and 33] are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall substitute
Frank J. Bisignano, the current Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration, as the Defendant in this matter.
_____________________________
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 30th day of October, 2025.
Case: 4:24-cv-00214-RWS Doc. #: 38 Filed: 10/30/25 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>