Biggins v. Delaware Dept. of Corrections et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 7/17/15. (klc)

IN THE UNITED STATES D 1STRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ELAWARE
JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Civ. Act' on No. 13-1688-GMS
)
)
)
)

MEMORAND M
The plaintiff, James Arthur Biggins ("Bigginst is an inmate incarcerated at the James T.
Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware. On

arch 24, 2015, the court dismissed the

(D.I. 26.) B1ggms moves for recons1derat1on and seek to reopen the case. (D.I. 27.)
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is o "correct manifest errors of law or fact
j1

or to present newly discovered evidence." Max's Seafi od Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). "A prop r Rule 59(e) motion ... must rely on one
of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in control ing law; (2) the availability of new
evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of la

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 ecision already made. See Glendon
Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F. Supp. 110 , 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993). Motions for
reargument or reconsideration may not be used "as a

eans to argue new facts or issues that

inexcusably were not presented to the court in the ma er previously decided." Brambles USA,
Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F. Supp. 1239, 1240 (D. Del. 199 ). Reargument, however, may be
1

appropriate where "the Court has patently misundersto d a party, or has made a decision outside
the adversarial issues presented to the court by the part es, or has made an error not of reasoning
but of apprehension." Brambles USA, 735 F. Supp. at 241 (D. Del. 1990) (citations omitted);

See also D. Del. LR 7.1.5.
Biggins filed this lawsuit against Correct Care olutions ("CCS"), a medical contractor
who provided medical and mental health services to i

ates held in Delaware Department of

Correction ("DOC") institutions. Biggins filed this m

er as a motion for preliminary

injunction. The court screened the filing to the extent iggins intended the motion for injunctive
relief to also serve as a complaint. (See D.I. 12.) Bigg"ns seeks only injunctive relief.
The court docket indicates that Biggins was no ified on two separate occasions of
deficiencies with the submitted USM-285 forms. (D.I. 20, 22.) Nonetheless, Biggins contends
he received only one notice. Regardless, he failed to c mply with this court's orders. The court
notes that Biggins is a seasoned litigant having filed

ore than thirty lawsuits in this court.

In addition, Biggins advises the court that CCS is no longer affiliated with the DOC and
that the services are now provided by Connections CS , Inc. (See D.I. 24, Biggins' letter/motion
to substitute CCS with Connections CSP, Inc.). He se ks relief from the current medical service
provider who is not a party to this action. Biggins has available to him the option of filing a
complaint against the current medical service provide . CCS cannot provide the relief that
Biggins seeks, given that it is no longer the medical s rvice provider for the DOC.
The court finds that Biggins has failed to dem nstrate any grounds for reconsideration.
Therefore, the court will deny the motion for reconsid

---

'3 vS t 7

, 2015

Wilmington, Delaware
2