Cephas v. Metzger et al

Filing 172

MEMORANDUM ORDER: White and Williams LLP's motion to withdraw as counsel (D.I. 163 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (D.I. 170 ) is DENIED (see Memorandum Order for further details). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 12/7/2022. (lah)

Case 1:18-cv-00851-RGA Document 172 Filed 12/07/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 4094

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
VERNON ERNEST DORIAN CEPHAS, :
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
: Civ. No. 18-851-RGA
:
DEPUTY WARDEN SCARBOROUGH, :
et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington, this 7th day of December, 2022, having considered White and
Williams LLP’s motion to withdraw as counsel (D.I. 163) and Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration (D.I. 170);
IT IS HEREY ORDERED that: (1) the motion to withdraw as counsel (D.I. 163) is
GRANTED; and (2) the motion for reconsideration (D.I. 170) is DENIED.
1.

Background. Plaintiff Vernon Ernst Dorian Cephas, an inmate at James

T. Vaughn Correctional Center, appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. He filed this action on June 6, 2018. (D.I. 3). On April 21, 2021,
Connections Community Support Programs, Inc. filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy and
on June 11, 2021, the Court entered an order that, as of April 19, 2021, stayed all
proceedings against Connections Community Support Programs, Inc. and its
employees pursuant to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).
(See D.I. 136, 144). On March 10, 2022, White and Williams, LLC filed a motion to

1

Case 1:18-cv-00851-RGA Document 172 Filed 12/07/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 4095

withdraw as counsel for Defendant Amy Malkin, a Connections’ employee. (D.I. 163).
On February 7, 2022, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant
Deputy Warden Scarborough and against Plaintiff. (D.I. 159, 160). It also granted in
part and dismissed in part a motion to strike. (Id.).

Plaintiff moves for

reconsideration.
2.

Motion to withdraw. The motion to withdraw as counsel will be granted.

(D.I. 163). Amy Malkin now appears pro se. (See D.I. 169 with updated address).
3.

Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff moves for reconsideration on the

grounds that the Court erred on the issue of retaliation when it made a credibility
determination. (D.I. 170). Plaintiff also asks the Court to stay the time to file a notice
of appeal until there is a judgment on Plaintiff’s claims against medical defendant R.N.
Malkin. (Id.). The claims against Malkin are stayed. (See D.I. 144). Scarborough
opposes on the grounds that the motion is untimely and, in the alternative, does not
provide grounds for reconsideration.
4.

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 Café ex rel. LouAnn, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). Such a 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).
5.

The motion for reconsideration is untimely. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

Plaintiff had 28 days from the filing of the order to file his motion for reconsideration.
2

Case 1:18-cv-00851-RGA Document 172 Filed 12/07/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 4096

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Locke v. Uber, 2015 WL 5008959, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 20,
2015) (dismissing motion for reconsideration as untimely), aff’d, 642 F. App’x 103, 104
(2016). The order at issue was docketed on February 8, 2022. (D.I. 160). Plaintiff
received the order on February 11, 2022. (See D.I. 161 at ¶ 1). Plaintiff sought, and
was granted, an extension of time until March 21, 2022 to file a notice of appeal. (D.I.
161, 162). Plaintiff did not file a notice of appeal. He filed a motion to reconsider on
March 21, 2022. (D.I. 170).
6.

Rule 59(e) set a deadline of “no later than 28 days after the entry of the

judgment” to file a motion for reconsideration. The motion for reconsideration was filed
on March 21, 2022, 41 days after entry of the February 8, 2022 order and 38 days after
Plaintiff received the order. Therefore, it is untimely.
7.

Even giving Plaintiff the benefit that he believed the deadline to extend the

time to appeal also applied to the motion for reconsideration, he is not entitled to relief.
Plaintiff attempts to reargue his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The
Court has reviewed the complaint, filing, and the memorandum opinion and order at
issue. There is no error, and Plaintiff has provided no grounds that warrant
reconsideration. The motion will be denied.
8.

Finally, Plaintiff asks the Court to stay the time to file a notice of appeal

until there is a judgment on his claims against Malkin. The motion will be denied. If
Plaintiff wishes to appeal a final order entered by this Court he must file a notice of
appeal at the proper time. See Akwei v. Bureau of Prisons, 2020 WL 8919083, at *1

3

Case 1:18-cv-00851-RGA Document 172 Filed 12/07/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 4097

(3d Cir. Oct. 2, 2020). Plaintiff needs to determine when that is; the Court cannot give
him legal advice.

/s/ Richard G. Andrews
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4