St. Louis v. Haller et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 11/14/2016. (nmg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JAMES ST. LOUIS,
Plaintiff,

v.
KARL HALLER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 16-356-SLR
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
· At Wilmington this

/4+ day of November, 2016,

having considered plaintiff's

motion to revisit and redress, construed as a motion for reconsideration (D.I. 7);
1. Plaintiff, an inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, moves for
reconsideration of the October 17, 2016 memorandum and order that dismissed his
case as legally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). (See D.I. 5, 6) 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. Lou-Ann, 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 has reviewed plaintiff's complaint and considered plaintiff's position
in the instant motion. In doing so, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate
grounds for reconsideration and, therefore, his motion will be denied.

3. Conclusion. For the above reasons, the court will deny the motion for
reconsideration. (D.I. 7) A separate order shall issue.

UNiTEOSTESDISTRICT JUDGE

2