Drumgo v. Brown et al

Filing 147

MEMORANDUM ORDER that: 1. The plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (D.l. 146 ) is granted in part and denied in part. 2. That portion ofthe March 11,2011 order (D.l. 145 ) denying the motion to withdraw attorney is vacated.3. The motion to wi thdraw attorney (D.1. 142 ) is granted. 4. Thad J. Bracegirdle is withdrawn as counsel for the plaintiff who will proceed pro sepending a second attempt to refer his representation to a member ofthe Federal Civil Panel. IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERE D that: 1. The Clerk of Court is directed to attempt to refer representation of the plaintiff to a member of the Federal Civil Panel. 2. The court's Standing Order regarding the establishment of a Federal Civil Panel to provide legal represe ntation to indigent parties in certain civil litigation is incorporated herein by reference. 3. The matter is stayed pending the attempt to refer representation of the plaintiff to a member of the Federal Civil Panel. Attorney Thad J. Bracegirdle terminated. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 4/4/14. (rwc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

DESHAWN DRUMGO,
Plaintiff,
v.
CPL. REGINALD BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)
)
)
) Civ. Action No. 08-592-GMS
)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM ORDER

At Wilmington !hi s

.t

\ay of

IrrII.,

'

2014, having considered the plaintiff's

motion for reconsideration (D.1. 146):
The plaintiff, DeShawn Drurngo moves for reconsideration of the Court's March 11,
2014 order wherein the court denied his motion to amend and motion to withdraw attorney. (See
D.L 145.) 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 rei. 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 of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.

Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666,669 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing North 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 ofGlendon, 836 F. Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993).
The court denied Drumgo's motion to withdraw attorney on the grounds that it was not
timely filed. Drumgo has presented evidence that he sought withdrawal of counsel in a timely

manner. Therefore, the court will vacate that portion of the order that denied the motion to
withdraw and will grant the motion to withdraw.
With regard to the motion to amend, the court finds that Drumgo has failed to
demonstrate any of the necessary grounds to warrant reconsideration of that portion of the order
that denied the motion to amend.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (D.l. 146) is granted in part and denied in

part.
2. That portion of the March 11,2011 order (D.l. 145) denying the motion to withdraw
attorney is vacated.
3. The motion to withdraw attorney (D.1. 142) is granted.
4. Thad J. Bracegirdle is withdrawn as counsel for the plaintiff who will proceed pro se
pending a second attempt to refer his representation to a member ofthe Federal Civil Panel.
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Clerk of Court is directed to attempt to refer representation of the plaintiff to a
member of the Federal Civil Panel.
2. The court's Standing Order regarding the establishment of a Federal Civil Panel to
provide legal representation to indigent parties in certain civil litigation is incorporated herein by
reference.
3. The matter is stayed pending the attempt to refer representation of the plaintiff to a
member of the Federal Civil Panel.

2

4. The plaintiff is place on notice that the court will not consider filings while the matter
is stayed. Filings will be docketed, but not considere

JUDGE

3