Biggins v. Phelps et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM ORDER- DENYING 4 MOTION for Reconsideration re 3 Order Denying IFP. Plaintiff is given thirty (30) days from the date of this order to pay the $350.00 filing fee. If the filing fee is not paid within that time, the complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice and closed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Set Deadlines: ( Filing Fee due by 8/25/2011.) Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 7/21/2011. (lid)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE

JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
PERRY PHELPS, et aI.,
Defendants.

)

)
)
)
) Civ. Action No. 11-388-GMS
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
{\'
-:-~
At Wilmington this'p day oN

I ' 2011;

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (D.1. 4) is denied, for the
reasons that follow:

I. BACKGROUND
The plaintiff, James Arthur Biggins ("Biggins"), is an inmate incarcerated at the James T.
Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware. On June 15,2011, the court denied Biggins
leave to proceed without prepayment of fees on the basis that he had three or more times in the
past, while incarcerated, brought a civil action or appeal in federal court that was dismissed
because it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
(D.1. 3); see 28 U.S.c. § 1915(g). He moves for reconsideration on the grounds that he filed the
case as a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (D.1. 4)

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard for obtaining relief under Rule 59(e) is difficult for Biggins 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 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 o/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.

III. DISCUSSION
Biggins is a frequent filer and is well aware of the three strikes provision contained in the
Prison Litigation Reform Act. His complaint is titled as a habeas corpus petition, but raises
medical needs claims, as well as claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Rehabilitation Act. In reading the complaint, is obvious that Biggins attempted to avoid payment
of the $350.00 filing fee by filing the complaint under the guise of a habeas corpus petition.
Captions and titles that a pro se litigant places upon filings are irrelevant; rather, it is the
function and substance of the documents that are determinative. Lewis v. Attorney Gen. o/US.,
878 F.2d 714, 722 n.20 (3d Cir. 1989); see also Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312,

-2­

316-317 (1988) (examining whether the pro se appellant's filing accomplished the "functional
equivalent of what the rule requires"). While Biggins titled his filing as a habeas corpus petition,
it is evident that it is nothing of the sort.
IV. CONCLUSION

Biggins has failed to demonstrate any of the necessary grounds to warrant a
reconsideration of the court's June 15,2011 order denying him leave to proceed informa

pauperis. The motion for reconsideration is denied. (D.l. 4.) Biggins is given thirty (30) days
from the date of this order to pay the $350.00 filing fee. If the filing fee is not paid within that
time, the complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice and closed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g).

GE

-3­