DuPree v. Jane Doe 1 et al
Filing
161
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 11/16/15. (sar)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JOHN RANDOLPH DUPREE, SR.,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 10-351-LPS
v.
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES
et at,
Defendants.
John Randolph DuPree,James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.
Chad J. Toms and Daniel A. Griffith, Esquires, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, L.L.c., Wilmington,
Delaware. Counsel for Defendant Correctional Medical Services, Inc., now known as Corizon, Inc.
and Ihuoma Chuks.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
November 16, 2015
Wilmington, Delaware
STARK, U.S. District Judge:
I.
INTRODUCTION
PlaintiffJohn Randolph DuPree, Sr. ("Plaintiff"), an inmate at the James T. Vaughn
Correctional Center (''VCC'') in Smyrna, Delaware, filed this action on April 27, 2010, alleging
constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U .S.c. § 1983. On August 3, 2015, the Court entered
judgment in favor of Defendants Correctional Service ("CMS") and Ihuoma Chuks ("Chuks")
(together "Defendants") and against Plaintiff. (D.L 156) Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's
motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (D.L 157), construed as a
motion for reconsideration, and motion for enlargement of time to appeal (D.L 158)
II.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff raised medical needs claim as a result of a skin condition that he alleged resulted in
scarring and hospitalization. The Court reviewed and screened the original Complaint, dismissed
some claims, and gave Plaintiff leave to amend; he later filed an Amended Complaint. Upon motion
by CMS, the Court dismissed all medical negligence claims. CMS filed its first motion for summary
judgment, which was denied based upon Plaintiff's representations that he would subpoena certain
witnesses who could support his claim without the need for an expert witness and because there was
an issue of fact as to whether policymakers at CMS knew of Plaintiff's medical needs yet delayed in
responding to them. (D.L 114, 115) The parties filed renewed motions for summary judgment and,
on July 31, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment (D.L 144) and
denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (D.L 145). (See D.L 154, 155) On August 18,
2015, the Clerk's Office docketed Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Fed.
1
R. Civ. P. 59(e), followed a few weeks later by Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file an
appeal. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on October 30, 2015. 1 (D.l. 159)
III.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
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 Gift ex reL Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d
669,677 (3d Cir. 1999). Motions for reconsideration are the "functional equivalent" of motions to
alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See}ones v. Pittsburgh Nat'l
C01p., 899 F.2d 1350, 1352 (3d Cir. 1990) (citing Federal Kemper Ins. Co. v. Rauscher, 807 F.2d 345,348
(3d Cir. 1986». A proper Rule 59(e) motion should 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. See Lazaridis v. lJ7ehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir.
2010).
motion for reconsideration is not properly grounded on a request that a court rethink a
decision already made. See Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough qfGlendon, 836 F.Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa.
1993). Nor may motions for reargument or reconsideration 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.
tJ•
Blocker, 735 F. Supp. 1239, 1240 (D. Del. 1990). Reargument, however, may be
lThe computation of time for complaints filed by pro se inmates is determined according to
the "mailbox rule." In HOlt.rton v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), the United States Supreme Court held
that a prisoner's notice of appeal of a habeas corpus petition was deemed filed as of the date it was
delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. While HONston dealt specifically with the filing
of a habeas appeal, the decision has been extended by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to
other prisoner filings, see BNrns v. Morton, 134 F.3d 109, 112 (3d Cir. 1998). Plaintiff's notice of
appeal was signed on October 30, 2015, and the envelope in which it was mailed is post-marked
October 31, 2015. The Court concludes that Plaintiff's notice of appeal was filed on October 30,
2015, the date it was signed, and the earliest date possible that it could have been delivered to prison
officials for mailing.
2
appropriate where a court "has patendy misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the
adversarial issues presented to the [c]ourt by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but
of apprehension." ld. at 1241 (citations omitted); .ree al.ro D. Del. LR 7.1
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration on the ground that the Court "ignored all of the evidence
which is clear and therefore doesn't support [the] ruling." (D.L 157) Plaintiff further argues that the
medical records support his position that Defendants violated his constitutional rights and that the
Court did not weigh all of the facts.
Before granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying Plaintiff's motion
for summary judgment, the Court thoroughly reviewed the record, including evidence filed in
support of the motions for summary judgment, and the law. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed
to demonstrate any grounds to warrant a reconsideration of the Court's July 31,2015 Memorandum
Opinion and Order. "Therefore, the motion (D.L 157)
IV.
\\Till
be denied.
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO APPEAL
Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to fIle an appeal (DJ. 158) on August 31,
2015. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 (a) (5) (A), the Court may grant Plaintiff's
motion only if it was filed no later than thirty (30) days after the expiration of the time originally
prescribed by Rule 4(a) (1 ) and he shows either excusable neglect or good cause.
I t is not clear if Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to appeal this Court's July 31, 2015
Order that granted Defendants' motion for summary and denied Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment (D.L 1
or to appeal the August 3, 2015 judgment entered in favor of Defendants and
against Plaintiff (D.L 156). The Court presumes that Plaintiff seeks to appeal the July 31, 2015 order
given his statement in his motion for reconsideration (D.L 157) that he will appeal if the motion for
reconsideration is not granted.
3
to the time requirement, the Court issued its Order granting Defendant's motion for
summary judgment and denying Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on July 31, 2015. (D.l.
155) The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require that a notice of appeal in a civil case be ftled
within 30 days after the order appealed from is entered on the district court's docket. See Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A), the Court may grant Plaintiffs motion
only if it was ftled no later than thirty days after the expiration of the time to appeal as originally
prescribed by Rule 4(a)(1) (i.e., August 31, 2015 since August 30, 2015 fell on a Sunday). Thus,
Plaintiff had to file the motion for extension of time to appeal the July 31, 2015 Order no later than
September 29, 2015. The motion for additional time to appeal was ftled on August 31, 2015.
Accordingly, Pla.intiffs motion for extension of time to ftle an appeal was timely under Rule 4(a)(5).
The Court must also determine whether Plaintiff has demonstrated excusable neglect or
good cause. Factors to consider in determining whether excusable neglect exists include: (1) the
danger of prejudice to the [nonmovant]; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on
judicial proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable
control of the movant; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. See In re Diet Drttgs Product
Liability Litigation, 401 F.3d 143, 153-54 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Pioneer 1m). Servs. Co. v. Brttnswick Assocs.
Ltd. P'ship, 507 C.S. 380, 395-97 (1993». As for determining if there is good cause to grant an
extension, the "good cause standard applies in situations in which there is no fault
excusable or
otherurise. In such situations, the need for an extension is usually occasioned by something that is
not within the control of the movant." Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(ii) advisory committee's note
(2002 amendments).
Plaintiff asks for the extension of time due to his need to conduct research and, as an
inmate, his limited law library access. Turning to Rule 4(a)(5)(A)(ii), the Court concludes that there
4
is good cause for granting an extension, and also that excusable neglect has been shown because the
Pioneer factors weigh in favor of granting Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff made a good faith effort in
filing his motion without delay. In addition, denying the motion would produce a harsh result for
Plaintiff. "Therefore, the Court will grant the motion for an extension of time to file a notice of
appeaL
V.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court will: (1) deny Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the
judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (D.I. 157); and (2) "\V'ill grant Plaintiff's motion for an
extension of time to file an appeal (D.I. 158).
An appropriate Order follows.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?