Drumgo v. Burris et al

Filing 53

MEMORANDUM Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 7/19/2016.(aah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DESHAWN DRUMGO,
Plaintiff,

v.
C/O ROOP, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Civ. No. 12-068-GMS
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
The plaintiff DeShawn Drumgo ("Drumgo") commenced this lawsuit in 2012. On May
3, 2016, the court dismissed the complaint after finding that Drumgo had failed to show cause
why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (See D.I. 50, 51.) Drumgo moves
for reconsideration because: ( 1) he proceeds pro se; (2) his § 1983 form was accepted meaning it
met the requirements for stating a claim; (3) he provided genuine factual material that exists;
(4) his claims were unfairly dismissed before discovery was received despite requests which was
a crippling blow in the prosecution of his case; and (5) there was nothing else he could do
without discovery.
The standard for obtaining relief under Rule 59(e) is difficult for Drumgo 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.
Drumgo has failed to demonstrate any of the necessary grounds to warrant
reconsideration of the court's May 9, 2016 memorandum and order dismissing the complaint for
his failure to prosecute. Therefore, the court will deny the motion for reconsideraf

_....=_-==;_""'I---"--+---'

2016

, Delaware

2

. (DJ. 52.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DESHAWN DRUMGO,

)
)
)
)
) Civ. No. 12-068-GMS
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

v.
C/O ROOP, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

~

At Wilmington this

.Jf_ day of _(..,.,,J,.__~--r----' 2016, for the reasons set forth in

the Memorandum issued this date,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (D.1. 52) is
denied.