Harmon v. Sussex County et al

Filing 88

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 11/4/2019. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
SANDRA HARMON ,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 17-1817-RGA

V.

SUSSEX COUNTY, TODD LAWSON ,
CONSTABLE MIKE CASTELLO ,
and KELLY PASSWATER,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
1.

Plaintiff Sandra Harmon appears pro se. She commenced this lawsuit to

protect her private property and preserve her right to restore her home located in
Rehoboth Beach , Delaware , which she owns with Leroy William Harmon Heirs and
Lefton Harmon , Sr. (D .I. 1; D.I. 1-1 at p.8) . Plaintiff alleges violations of her rights
under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to peaceful enjoyment of the property and
unlawful tactics by Sussex County government officials.

On September 12, 2019 , the

Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff's motion
for summary judgment and motion to strike . (D .I. 76 , 77) . Plaintiff moves for
reconsideration . (D .I. 79) . Defendants oppose. (D .I. 86).

Briefing on the matter is

complete.
2.

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration due to "misinterpretation of Sussex

County Administration Policies ... , disregard of applicable state laws, [and] false
statements offacts. " (D. I. 79 at 1). Plaintiff argues that the Court's decision is "clearly
unfair, not in the interest of justice, and a violation of [her] constitutional rights ." (Id.).

1

Plaintiff also asks the Court to refer this matter to the "Federal Attorney General for
possible charges under the Federal RICO Act." (Id. at 7) .
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 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 clear error of law or
prevent manifest injustice. " Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666 , 669 (3d Cir. 2010) .
4.

The Court has reviewed the relevant filings in the case , the facts

presented and the applicable law as well as its September 12, 2019 memorandum
opinion and order. In addition , it considers Plaintiff's position and notes that the
September 12, 2019 memorandum opinion addressed the issues Plaintiff raises in the
instant motion. The Court also considers Defendants' opposition to the motion for
reconsideration . Upon a complete review of this case, the Court finds that based upon
the law and the facts, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any of the grounds necessary
to warrant a reconsideration of the Court's September 12, 2019 memorandum opinion
and order that granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment.

Finally, the Court declines to refer this matter to the

Attorney General for consideration of RICO violations .
5.

Conclusion . For the above reasons , the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion

for reconsideration.

(D.I. 79) .

November !£_, 2019

2