Ortiz v. Haller et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 1/9/2017. (lmm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CARLOS ORTIZ,
Plaintiff,

v.

Civ. No. 16-181-LPS

KARL HALLER, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
I.

BACKGROUND
On November 10, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint as legally frivolous

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and§ 1915A(b)(1). (See D.I. 7, 8) Plaintiff moves for
reconsideration. (D.I. 9)

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 Cqfe ex rel Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d
669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). A motion for reconsideration is the "functional equivalent" of a motion to
alter or amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). See Jones v. Pittsburgh Nat'! Corp., 899 F.2d 1350,
1352 (3d Cir. 1990) (citing Federal Kemper Ins. Co. v. "Rauscher, 807 F.2d 345, 348 (3d Cir. 1986)).
"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. LaZfiridis 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).

1

III.

DISCUSSION
In dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court reviewed Plaintiff's allegations and the

applicable law. The Court has again reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint and the instant motion and fmds
that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any grounds to warrant reconsideration of the Court's
November 10, 2016 Order.

CONCLUSION

IV.

For the reasons set forth above, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.

(D.I. 9)
A separate Order will be entered.

Dated:

January~

, 2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CARLOS ORTIZ,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 16-181-LPS

v.

KARL HALLER, et al.,
Defendants.

~

ORDER

At Wilmington this _ _ day of January, 2017, for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum
issued this date;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (D.I. 9) is
DENIED.

UNIT