Ortiz v. Haller et al

Filing 10

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

Download PDF
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

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?