Millington v. Geico
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 11/16/15. (sar)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JENNIFER MURPHY MILLINGTON,
a/k/ a Little Crow,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 14-929-LPS
v.
GEICO, et al.,
Defendants.
Jennifer Murphy Millington, Seaford, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.
William Robert Stewart, III, Esquire, The Law Office of Dawn L. Becker, Wilmington, Delaware.
Counsel for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
NovembejJ, 2015
Wilmington, Delaware
1=iG ~ ,f'v-
sTARK;u.s. DistrictJudge:
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Jennifer Murphy Millington ("Millington") filed this action on July 15, 2014. She
proceeds pro se and was granted in forma pauperis status. Millington raises claims for injuries
sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident. On September 1, 2015, the Court granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of her request for
counsel. (D.I. 17) Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for/to appeal order (D.I. 19),
construed by the court as a motion for reconsideration
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS
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 Cefe ex rel. Lo11-Ann, Inc. v. Q11interos, 176 F.3d
669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). Motions for reconsideration are the "functional equivalent" of motions to
alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Jones v. Pittsburgh Nat'!
Cop., 899 F.2d 1350, 1352 (3d Cir. 1990). A proper Rule 59(e) motion should 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. See Lazaridis v. Wehmer,
591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010).
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 a court "has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the
1
adversarial issues presented to the [c]ourt by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but
of apprehension." Id. at 1241 (citations omitted); see also D. Del. LR 7.1.5.
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration. She asks why she was refused appointed counsel given
the nature of her illness and health. She contends that Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted
without proper notification. 1 Finally, she asks why the Clerk of Court was ordered to close the case
when discovery was still in process.
The Court thoroughly reviewed the record and considered the law in granting Defendants'
motion to dismiss and denying Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. The Court finds that Plaintiff
has failed to demonstrate any grounds to warrant a reconsideration of the Court's September 1, 2015
Memorandum Opinion and Order. Therefore, the motion (D.I. 19) will be denied.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. (D.I. 19)
An appropriate Order follows.
1
The motion to dismiss contains a certificate of service indicating that Plaintiff was provided
a service copy at two different address: one in Seaford, Delaware and one in Sewell, New Jersey.
(D.I. 11 at 9)
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?