Manuel v. Office of Personnel Management

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Jacqueline R. Manuel,
Plaintiff,
v.
Office of Personnel Management,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-03330
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Nearly 	than 	two 	years 	after 	final 	judgment 	was 	entered, 	Dkt. 	36
(September 28, 2023), Plaintiff Jacqueline R. Manuel has filed both a motion
to “reopen” the case, Dkt. 40 (filed September 2, 2025), and for permission to
proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 41. 	Both motions were referred to the
undersigned judge. Dkt. 42. And both requests should be denied.
This case is over. 	The Court granted summary judgment against
Manuel, rejecting all her claims for lack of jurisdiction, Dkt. 35 (September 27,
2023 Memorandum and Order), and also denied her motion for reconsideration
after entering final judgment, see Dkt. 36 (final judgment), Dkt. 39 (October
25, 2023 Order denying Dkt. 37, motion for reconsideration). 	The proper
avenue for Manuel to raise her complaints was by timely appealing those
decisions to the Fifth Circuit by November 24, 2023. 	See Fed. R. App. P.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 06, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:22-cv-03330 Document 43 Filed 02/06/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
4(a)(1)(A), (a)(4)(A) (deadline for notice of appeal was 30 days after order
resolving last post-judgment motion). She simply failed to do so.
Moreover, Manuel’s complaints about this Court’s prior ruling do not
qualify for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 	That rule does not allow parties
to relitigate issues merely because they are dissatisfied with how the Court
resolved them. 	See Carter v. Dolce, 741 F.2d 758, 759-60 (5th Cir. 1984)
(rejecting use of Rule 60(b) to “relitigate issues finally determined” in an action
between the same parties); Cosey v. Lumpkin, 2023 WL 11852785, at *1 (S.D.
Tex. Feb. 14, 2023) (“[A] party’s disagreement with the Court’s previous ruling
is not a basis for relief under Rule 60(b).”). 	Manuel’s motion to reopen this
long-closed case should be denied.
The denial of Manuel’s request to reopen the case would also foreclose
her application to proceed in forma pauperis. See Dkt. 41. Because no further
litigation is merited, her application should be denied as moot.
Recommendation
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	it 	is 	RECOMMENDED 	that 	Plaintiff
Jacqueline R. Manuel’s motion to reopen the case (Dkt. 40) be DENIED, and
her application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 41) be DENIED
AS MOOT.
The parties have fourteen days from service of this Report and
Recommendation to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
Case 4:22-cv-03330 Document 43 Filed 02/06/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
R. 	Civ. 	P. 	72(b). 	Failure 	to 	file 	timely 	objections 	will 	preclude
appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions, except for
plain error. 	Ortiz v. City of San Antonio Fire Dep’t, 806 F.3d 822, 825
(5th Cir. 2015).
Signed on February 6, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
______________________________
Yvonne Y. Ho
United States Magistrate Judge
,
_____________________________________
Yvooon	nn	n	ne Y. Ho
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:22-cv-03330 Document 43 Filed 02/06/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3