Drumgo et al v. Pierce et al

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 6/12/2018. (nmg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE

DE SHAWN DRUMGO,

)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
V.

JOHN DOES, et al.,

Civ. No. 17-188-GMS

)
)
)

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

The plaintiff, DeShawn Drumgo ("the plaintiff'), a former inmate at the James T.
Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware, now housed at Frackville State Correctional
Institution in Frackville, Pennsylvania, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
appears pro se and was granted permission to proceed in form a pauperis. (D .I. 12.) On April
12, 2018, the court reviewed and screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and
§ 1915A. (D.I. 33, 34.) The plaintiff was allowed to proceed on excessive force claims against

the defendants Marvel, Beale, Mitchell, and John Doe Defendants. All other claims and
defendants, as well as the plaintiff "One Hundred and Fifteen Men & Witnesses" were
dismissed. The plaintiff moves for reconsideration. (D.I. 35.)
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

1

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 of Glendon, 836 F. Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. 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 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.

The court has reviewed the complaint and applicable law, as well as the plaintiff's
argument in his motion for reconsideration, and finds that the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate
any grounds for reconsideration. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration (D.I. 35) will be
denied.

"1 ~ l1--- ,2018
Wilmington, Delaware

2