Noble v. State Of Delaware et al

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM - Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 5/1/18. (rwc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
THOMAS E. NOBLE,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 17-353-LPS

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
1.

Introduction. Plaintiff Thomas E. Noble ("Plaintiff'), a former inmate at the

Howard R. Young Correctional Institution in Wilmington, Delaware, now housed at FDC
Philadelphia in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
was not incarcerated when he commenced this action. He appears prose and has paid the filing fee. 1
On November 7, 2017, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, exercised its inherent
power, and sua sponte dismissed all other claims and Defendants as completely devoid of merit. (D.I.
35) The Court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any State claims. (Id.) On
November 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to remove and to transfer his State Criminal Case to this
Court pursuant to pendent jurisdiction. (D.I. 38) On November 20, 2017, the Clerk of Court
received and docketed Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and for a stay. (D.I. 39) On January 5,
2018, the Court denied both motions. (D .I. 43) The same day, Plaintiff filed a second motion to
remove State criminal case and transfer it. (D.I. 44) On January 11, 2018, the Court denied the

1

As noted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Plaintiff "is a serial litigator.
He has filed over five dozen lawsuits in federal district courts, including over 30 complaints in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware." In re Noble, 663 F. App'x 188, 189 (3d
Cir. Oct. 6, 2016).
1

motion as moot. (D.I. 44) On January 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the
January 11, 2018 Order. (D.I. 47)
2.

Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff moves to stay and for reconsideration for

"impartial reconsideration" by a district court designated by the United States Supreme Court. (D.I.
47)
3.

The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to "correct manifest errors of law or

fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Max's Seefood Cefe 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)).
4.

Plaintiff's displeasure with this Court's ruling and claim of impartiality does not meet

the requisites for reconsideration. Plaintiff's motion fails on the merits because he has not set forth
any intervening changes in the controlling law; new evidence; or clear errors of law or fact made by
the Court in its January 11, 2018 order to would warrant granting reconsideration. See Max's Seefood

Cefe, 176 F.3d at 677. In addition, the Court has once again considered the filings of the parties and
the evidence of record. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any of the aforementioned grounds to
warrant a reconsideration and, therefore, the motion will be denied. (D.I. 47)
5.

Conclusion. The court will deny the motion for reconsideration and to stay. (D.l.

47) An appropriate order will be entered.

h~~

L

- - - - ~ + - - - - - - ' 2018
Wilmington, Delaware

2