Cohen v. Navarro

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM ORDER: The Motion for Reconsideration (D.I. 17 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 5/23/2019. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JEFFREY COHEN,
Plaintiff,
: Civ. No. 17-1352-RGA

V.

JEFFREY MICELI and JOHN TINSLEY, :
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this

i1

day of May, 2019, having considered Plaintiff's motion

to modify order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 (D.I. 17), construed as a motion for
reconsideration;
IT IS ORDERED that motion for reconsideration (D.I. 17) is DENIED, for the
reasons that follow:
On March 19, 2019, the Court abstained from this matter under the Younger
abstention doctrine and, in the alternative, dismissed the Amended Complaint as legally
frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and§ 1915A(b)(1).

Plaintiff asks the

Court to modify footnote 7 of its opinion, which stated that claims raised against Miceli
"appear[ed]" to be barred by Delaware's absolute privilege doctrine.

(D.I. 17).

Plaintiff does not address the fact the Court abstained from this matter under the
Younger abstention doctrine, or the various other bases for the Court's alternative
holding.
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,

1

Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). A 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).

The Court has reviewed the filings and its Memorandum Opinion and Order that
abstained from this matter under the Younger abstention doctrine and, in the alternative,
dismissed the Amended Complaint as legally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(8)(i) and § 1915A(b)(1 ).

In doing so, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed

to demonstrate any of the grounds necessary to warrant reconsideration.

The Court

considers the statement to be unnecessary to the Court's decisions (as evidenced by its
placement in a footnote).

Therefore, Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (D.I. 17) will

be denied.

DISTRICT JUDGE

2