Turner v. Tezac, et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 6/9/2017. (nmg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ORIN TURNER,
Plaintiff;

v.
LINDA TEZAC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Civ. Action No. 02-145-GMS
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
I.

BACKGROUND
The plaintiff, Orin Turner ("Turner"), filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. On January 4, 2005, the court screened the case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1915 and
dismissed the complaint as frivolous. (D.I. 9.) On April 24, 2017, Turner filed a motion for
reconsideration based upon new evidence. (D.I. 11.)

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The standard for obtaining relief under Rule 59(e) is difficult for Turner to meet. The

purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to "correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present
newly discovered evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d
669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). "A proper Rule 59(e) motion ... must rely on one of three grounds:
(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need
to correct a clear error oflaw or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591
F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing N River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194,
1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). A motion for reconsideration is not properly grounded on a request that a
court rethink a decision already made. See Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F.
Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993). Motions for reargument or reconsideration may not be used

"as a means to argue new facts or issues that inexcusably were not presented to the court in the
matter previously decided." Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F. Supp. 1239, 1240 (D. Del.
1990). Reargument, however, may be appropriate where "the Court has patently misunderstood
a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the court by the parties,
or has made an error not ofreasoning but of apprehension." Brambles USA, 735 F. Supp. at
1241 (D. Del. 1990) (citations omitted); See also D. Del. LR 7.1.5.
In his complaint, Turner alleged that he was placed in pre-hearing detention on January 8,
2002, removed from isolation on January 22, 2002, and then classified to the Security Housing
Unit rather than being returned to his original status. (D.I. 2.) In the instant motion, Turner
claims that his transfer from the Delaware Department of Correction (on an unstated date) to the
Pennsylvania Department of Correction is "new evidence of retaliation." He states that before
his transfer he had no misconduct/writeups, had a prison job, and was afforded contact visits,
telephone calls, religious services, and frequent showers, but at the Pennsylvania Department of
Correction he is not housed under the same conditions. Turner provides his statement and
nothing else to support his claim that the transfer to the Pennsylvania Department of Correction
was retaliatory. In addition, his "new evidence" of retaliation is unrelated to the complaint that
was dismissed in 2005.
The court finds that Turner has failed to demonstrate any grounds to warrant
reconsideration of his case. Therefore, the court will deny the motion. (D .I. 11.)

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the court will deny the motion for reconsideratio_...,____"-=fi
An appropriate order will be entered.

--..

..jtA.r-£-. C\ ' 2017
Wilmington, Delaware
2