Hardwick v. Phelps

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 8/9/2016. (klc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JAMES HARDWICK,
Plaintiff,

v.
CHRISTOPHER SENATO, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 15-326-SLR
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
At Wilmington this~ day of August, 2016, having considered plaintiff's motion
for reconsideration (D.I. 41);
1. Plaintiff, an inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, moves for
reconsideration and requests reevaluation of his prior request for issuance of a writ of
mandamus to compel the return of his legal work and religious items currently withheld
from him. It is not clear if plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the May 24, 2016 order for
defendants to respond to plaintiff's discovery (D.I. 34), the July 22, 2016 order staying
discovery (D.I. 39), or reconsideration of a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit that denied plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandamus in In re
Hardwick, No. 16-2467 (3d Cir. July 22, 2016).
2. 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. LouAnn, 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, 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).
3. The court finds that he has failed to demonstrate grounds for reconsideration
and, therefore, his motion will be denied. Notably, the court granted plaintiff's
"mandamus compelling D.O.C.'s employees to produce documents requested motion to
compel discovery," construed as a motion to compel on March 24, 2016. In addition,
discovery has been stayed given that plaintiff has been given leave to file a third
amended complaint and there is no operative complaint in this action. Finally, the court
does not have the authority to reconsider a ruling by the appellate court to the extent
that is plaintiff's request. Therefore, the motion will be denied.
4. Conclusion. For the above reasons, the court will deny the motion for
reconsideration. (D. I. 41) A separate order shall issue.

2