Biggins v. Coupe et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM ORDER - denying 4 MOTION for Reargument. Plaintiff shall pay the $400.00 filing fee w/in 30-days. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 12/2/16. (rwc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS,

)

)
)
)
) Civ. Action No. 16-895-GMS
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. COUPE, et aI.,
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this

~ay of

~"

, 2016, having considered the

plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (0.1.4);
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (l) the motion for reconsideration (OJ. 4) is denied;
(2) the plaintiff is given thirty (30) days from the date of this order to pay the $400.00 filing fee;
and (3) the plaintiff is placed on notice that, if the filing fee is not paid within that time, the
complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice and closed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), for
the reasons that follow:
The plaintiff James Arthur Biggins ("Biggins"), an inmate, is housed at the James T.
Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware. He appears pro se and commenced this
instant action without paying the filing fee or seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He
filed this action as a petition for a writ of mandamus (0.1. 1) for the court "to exercise its lawful
authority upon the lower courts and named defendants to compel their official and individual
responsibilities to adhere to both the state and federal constitutions' protection of his religious
freedoms of exercise of religion." (Jd.) The court reviewed the petition and, on October 14,

2016, concluded that it was not a bona fide mandamus action, but a civil rights action, given that
it raises free exercise of religion claims. (See DJ. 3.)
In the same order, the court concluded that Biggins could not proceed in forma pauperis
given that he had three or more times in the past, while incarcerated, brought a civil action or
appeal in federal court that was dismissed because it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, and the instant complaint did not allege imminent harm.
(D.!. 3); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Biggins now moves for reconsideration of the court's order.

(See D.L 4.)
The standard for obtaining relief under Rule 59(e) is difficult for Biggins to meet. 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 rei. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, ] 76 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 North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d
1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995». 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 ofGlendon,
836 F. Supp. 1109, 1122 (RD. 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 "the Court has patently
misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the

2

court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension." Brambles USA,
735 F. Supp. at 1241 (D. Del. 1990) (citations omitted); See also D. Del. LR 7.1.5.
Upon review of the petition/complaint, the October 14,2016 order, and Biggins' pending
motion, the court concludes that Biggins has failed to demonstrate any of the necessary grounds
to warrant a reconsideration of the court's October 14,2016 order that found the petition for a
writ of mandarn us is not a bona fide action but, rather, is a

3