Phifer v. Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc. et al

Filing 40

MEMORANDUM ORDER - denying re 34 MOTION for Reargument - re 28 Memorandum and Order. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 5/7/12. (rwc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE

SAMUEL THOMAS PHIFER,
Plaintiff,
v.
SEVENSON ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC. and DELAWARE
SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY, et aI.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)
) Civ. Action No. 11-169-GMS
)

)

)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
The plaintiff, Samuel Thomas Phifer ("Phifer"), appears pro se and has been granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On March 14,2012, the court ruled on all pending motions
and, in doing so, dismissed certain claims raised in the complaint and denied Phifer's motion to
amend, motion for summary judgment as premature, and motion for default. (D.I. 28.) Now
before the court is Phifer's motion for reargument pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.5, construed as a
motion for reconsideration and the defendants' oppositions thereto. (D.I. 34, 37, 38.)
The standard for obtaining relief under Rule 59(e) is difficult for Phifer 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 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 oflaw 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 a/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 of reasoning but of apprehension." Brambles USA, 735 F.Supp. at 1241
(D. Del. 1990) (citations omitted); See also D. Del. LR 7.1.5.
Phifer reargues all the issues ruled upon the court and disagrees with rulings against his
position. In considering Phifer's motion, the court finds that he has failed to demonstrate any of
the necessary grounds to warrant reconsideration of the court's March 14,2012 memorandum
and order at docket item 28. Accordingly, the court will deny the motion for reargument.
NOW THEREFORE, at Wilmington this

l

-r~

day of

H
1

HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reargument is denied. (D.1. 34.)

2

'

2012, IT IS