Biggins v. Danberg et al

Filing 48

MEMORANDUM ORDER - denying 35 MOTION to Strike; denying 38 MOTION for Judgment of Relief Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b)(6); denying 45 MOTION to Amend. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 3/12/14. (mdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS,

)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

) Civ. Action No. 12-1666-GMS

V.

MEDICAL ADMINISTRATOR, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM ORDER

At Wilmington this J2-1'Jay of

~' 2014, having considered the plaintiffs

pending motions (D.I. 35, 38, 45);
IT IS ORDERED that the motions (D.I. 35, 38, 45) are denied, for the reasons that follow:
1. Background. The plaintiff, James Arthur Biggins ("Biggins"), a prisoner housed at
the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware, filed a civil rights lawsuit pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds prose and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(D.I. 6, 9.)
1. Motion to Strike. On August 23, 2013, Biggins filed a motion for injunctive relief

seeking medical treatment for a shoulder injury, opposed by the defendants on October 7, 2013.
(D.I. 27, 33.) On October 18, 2013 Biggins moved to strike the defendants' response as untimely.
(D.I. 35.) The court considered the defendants' response and denied the motion for injunctive
relief on November 18, 2013. (D.I. 37.) The motion to strike is moot and is denied.
2. Motion for Reconsideration. Biggins filed a motion for judgment of relief pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) construed by the court as a motion for reconsideration of the November
18, 2013 order that denied his motion for injunctive relief seeking medical treatment. (D.I. 38.)
The defendants oppose the motion.

3. 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
ofthree 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).
4. Having review the motion and documents submitted by Biggins, the court finds that he
has failed to demonstrate any of the necessary grounds to warrant reconsideration of the court's
November 18, 2013 order that denied Biggins' motion for injunctive relief. Therefore, the
motion for reconsideration is denied.
5. Motion to Amend. Biggins seeks to amend by adding new defendants. He did not
provide a copy of his proposed amendment as is required by Local Rule 15.l(b). See D. Del. LR
15.1(b). Biggins previously sought, and was denied, leave to amend. (See D.I. 37.) In the
court's November 18,2013, order Biggins was advised that "should [he] seek to amend the
complaint in the future, he shall attach to the motion to amend a copy of the proposed amended
complaint for the court's review." (/d.) Biggins did not follow the court's directive. Therefore,
motion to amend is denied.

2