Biggins v. Delaware Dept. of Corrections et al
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 01/21/15. (etg, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS,
Plaintiff,
V.
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
) Civ. Action No. 13-1688-GMS
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM
The plaintiff, James Arthur Biggins ("Biggins"), is an inmate incarcerated at the James T.
Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware. On September 9, 2014, the court entered an
order that denied Biggins' motion for injunctive relief and dismissed the defendant the Delaware
Department of Correction ("DOC") following screening of the complaint. (D .I. 12, 13.) Biggins
filed a motion for judgment ofrelief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and seeks to reinstate the
DOC. (D.I. 14.) The court construes the motion as a 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 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 of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.
Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591F.3d666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (citingN. 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
i
I
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.
The court finds that Biggins has failed to demonstrate any grounds for reconsideration.
Therefore, the court will deny the motion for reconsideration. Biggins will be given additional
time to comply with the September 9, 2014 order.
---
---.,J °"'-
l/
' 2015
Wilmington, Delaware
2
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?