Noble v. Stark

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 4/30/2018. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In re:
THOMAS E. NOBLE,

Misc. Action No. 17-358-RGA

Movant.

THOMAS E. NOBLE,
Petitioner,
v.

CHIEF JUDGE LEONARD STARK,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM
1.

Introduction. On December 28, 2017, Movant Thomas E. Noble, a

former inmate at the Howard R. Young Correctional Institution in Wilmington, Delaware,
now housed at FDC Philadelphia in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, filed a motion for leave
to file a new complaint. Noble must seek leave as a result of an order entered on
September 13, 2004, by former United States District Court Judge Kent A. Jordan
enjoining him from filing any pro se civil rights complaints without prior approval of the
Court. 1 See Noble v. Becker, Civ. No. 03-906-KAJ, D.I. 12. After reviewing Noble's
motion and proposed complaint, on January 9, 2018, I denied his motion for leave to file
a new complaint. (D.I. 6, 7). Noble moves for reconsideration and has also filed a

1

As noted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Noble "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. 2016).

motion to correct the record, and a motion to file only one copy of documents. (D.I. 8, 9,
10).
2.

Motion for Reconsideration. Noble moves for reconsideration and asks

that the matter be adjudicated by an impartial judge at a district court designated by the
United States Supreme Court because the "Illuminati" controls this Court, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and other District Courts in the Third
Circuit. (D.I. 8). Noble contends that the judges "have been unilaterally colluding
continuously with the States of Delaware and Pennsylvania since 1982 to effectively
deprive [him] of all rights [he] could be said to possess by unconstitutionally robbing
[him] of [his] right to be heard by an impartial court to uphold those rights." (Id.).
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.

Noble argues that reconsideration is appropriate because it is apparent

when reviewing his proposed complaint there has been collusion and other egregious
violations of his rights, all of which evince an ongoing pattern of racketeering activity.
Noble's displeasure with this Court's ruling and claim of impartiality does not meet the
requisites for reconsideration. Noble'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 that would warrant granting

reconsideration. See Max's Seafood Cafe, 176 F.3d at 677. In addition, the Court has
once again reviewed and considered his filings. Noble has failed to demonstrate any of
the aforementioned grounds to warrant a reconsideration and, therefore, the motion will
be denied. (D.I. 8)
5.

Conclusion. The Court will deny the motion for reconsideration. (D.I. 8)

Noble's other motions (D.I. 9, 10) will be dismissed as moot. An appropriate order will
be entered.

~~~
s
UNITED STAT

DISTRICT JUDGE