PRALL v. BOCCHINI et al

Filing 197

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 171 Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint and to Be Relieved From 12/21/2012 and 12/26/2012 Opinions, etc. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 3/28/2013. (dmr)(n.m.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

TORMU E. PRALL,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSEPH L. BOCCHINI, JR.,
et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No.: 10-1228(JBS)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

THIS MATTER having come before the Court by way of motion of
Plaintiff, Tormu E. Prall, to file a third amended Complaint and
for relief from December 21, 2012 and December 26, 2012 Opinions
(Docket entry no. 171), and the Court having considered the
papers submitted herein, and Defendants’ opposition to the motion
(Docket entry no. 181), and for the reasons expressed herein and
for good cause shown, and it appearing that:
1.

On or about January 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to

file a third amended Complaint and to be relieved from this
Court’s December 21, 2012 and December 26, 2012 Opinions and
Orders.

In support of his motion, Plaintiff attaches three

inmate remedy forms dated November 2, 2011, November 11, 2011,
and December 10, 2011; the proposed third amended Complaint; and
a notice of written deposition questions for the undersigned to
answer.

(Docket entry no. 171, 171-1).

2.

Plaintiff’s third amended Complaint simply adds the

Defendants who have been dismissed from this action since
September 23, 2011, and most recently, on December 26, 2012.
Plaintiff also seeks to re-instate paragraphs 1 through 196 of
his second amended Complaint and Counts I through VIII.

(See

Docket entry no. 171-1).
3.

On March 1, 2013, the New Jersey State Prison (“NJSP”)

Defendants, Jimmy Barnes, James Drumm, Chris Holmes, James Keil,
Lt. Alaimo, William J. Moleins, Ortiz, and Michelle R. Ricci,
filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion.
181).

(Docket entry no.

The NJSP Defendants argue that the motion should be denied

because it is disguised as a motion for reconsideration, and
because Plaintiff does not bring any new claims or attempt to
cure deficient claims.

The NJSP Defendants also contend that the

motion to amend is a futile gesture because the allegations are
meritless.
4.

(Docket entry no. 181).

On December 21, 2012, this Court issued an Opinion and

Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion to
file a second amended Complaint.

For instance, this Court denied

Plaintiff’s attempt to re-introduce claims and parties in this
action that were previously dismissed in the September 23, 2011
Opinion and Order.

However, the Court allowed Plaintiff to amend

his Complaint to add new allegations of physical abuse allegedly
occurring in March 2012.
5.

(Docket entry nos. 163, 164).

On December 26, 2012, this Court granted in part the New

Jersey State Prison (“NJSP”) Defendants motion for summary
2

judgment, dismissing all claims against the NJSP Defendants
except the newly added Eighth Amendment claims of physical and
sexual abuse stemming from the March 2012 alleged incidents.

The

Court also denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and
his requests for miscellaneous discovery.

(Docket entry nos.

166, 167).
6.

Plaintiff now seeks relief from the above December 21,

2012 and December 26, 2012 Orders.

Such request for relief from

these Orders is construed as a motion for reconsideration.

A

motion for reconsideration is “an extraordinary remedy to be
granted very sparingly.”

In re Lord Abbett Mut. Funds Fee

Litig., 417 F. Supp.2d 624, 627 (D.N.J. 2005)(internal quotation
marks omitted).

There are three grounds for relief upon which a

motion for reconsideration may be granted, under L.Civ.R. 7.1(i):
“(1) an intervening change in controlling law has occurred; (2)
evidence not previously available has become available; or (3) it
is necessary to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest
injustice.”

Connolly v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (Am.) Inc., No.

04–5127, 2010 WL 715775, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 1, 2010).

The Local

Rule dictates that the movant must identify the matter or
controlling decisions that the Court “has overlooked.” L.Civ.R.
7.1(i).

Moreover, reconsideration is not appropriate to

“relitigate old matters” or to voice disagreement with the
court’s decision.

See Flores v. Predco Servs. Corp., No.

10–1320, 2011 WL 3273573, at *2 (D.N.J. July 29, 2011).

“A

motion for reconsideration is improper when it is used to ask the
3

Court to rethink what it has already thought through—rightly or
wrongly.”

Oritani Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of

Md., 744 F. Supp. 1311, 1314 (D.N.J. 1990)(internal quotation
marks omitted).
7.

Plaintiff’s motion fails to establish any of the three

grounds for relief necessary to grant a motion for
reconsideration.

Plaintiff fails to identify any controlling

decisions that this Court has purportedly overlooked.

Plaintiff

also fails to provide any factual support for reconsideration or
relief from judgment.

Plaintiff merely refers to three post-

dated inmate remedy forms that were not filed until well after
this action had been initiated, and after the September 23, 2011
Opinion and Order dismissing most of Plaintiff’s claims that
Plaintiff now seeks to reinstate by a third amendment.

Finally,

Plaintiff’s motion amounts to little more than a repeated attempt
to relitigate old matters.

Plaintiff’s request to depose this

Court in this action about the December 2012 decisions is
improper when it is designed to ask the Court to rethink what was
already thoroughly decided.

Beyond that, Plaintiff seeks to

treat this Court in a vexatious manner in total disregard of all
procedural rules.

This Court warns Mr. Prall to cease such

behavior, or he will be subject to having this case dismissed for
vexatious litigation tactics under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and under the
court's inherent power to address the misconduct of litigants.
Plaintiff’s only proper course if he disagrees with this Court’s
decision is to file an appeal.
4

8.

To the extent that Plaintiff now wishes to amend his

action yet a third time, the motion to amend must be denied.
Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
that leave to amend should be freely given when justice so
requires.

The decision to permit amendment is discretionary.

Toll Bros., Inc. v. Township of Readington, 555 F.3d 131, 144 n.
10 (3d Cir. 2009).

Among the legitimate reasons to deny a motion

is that the amendment would be futile.

Lorenz v. CSX Corp., 1

F.3d 1406, 1414 (3d Cir. 1993)(citation omitted).

Futility is

determined by the standard of legal sufficiency set forth in
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

In re Burlington Coat Factory Litigation,

114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir.1997).

Accordingly, an amendment is

futile where the complaint, as amended, would fail to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted.
9.

Id.

This Court finds Plaintiff’s attempt to amend his

Complaint for a third time to be futile.

The NJSP Defendants

correctly point out that the third amended Complaint merely seeks
to re-instate allegations, claims and defendants that were
previously dismissed from this action by Court Orders dated
September 23, 2011, December 21, 2012, and December 26, 2012.
Plaintiff’s proposed amendment does not cure any of the
deficiencies of the claims he now seeks to reinstate.

Instead,

Plaintiff simply “reincorporates” paragraphs 1-196 and Counts I
through VIII of his second amended Complaint, which were
dismissed by this Court’s December 21, 2012 Opinion and Order.
Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is yet another repetitive, vexatious and
5

meritless attempt to re-litigate matters that have been dismissed
from this action after thorough review by this Court.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to file a third amended Complaint
will be denied.
THEREFORE, the Court having considered this matter pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 78, and for good cause shown,
IT IS, on this

28th

day of

March

, 2013,

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to file a third amended
Complaint and to be relieved from the December 21, 2012 and
December 26, 2012 Opinions (Docket entry no. 171) is hereby
DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff shall cease his vexatious litigation
practices such as continuing to attempt to raise claims that have
already been dismissed with prejudice, and attempting to convert
this neutral court into an adversary such as by serving discovery
requests upon judicial or court officers; failure to comply with
this directive will result in dismissal of the case for willful
misconduct under 28 U.S.C. § 1927; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Order on the
Plaintiff by regular mail, and on counsel for the remaining
defendants electronically.

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE, Chief Judge
United States District Court

6