COOPER v. COUNTY OF CAMDEN et al
Filing
76
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 6/20/2018. (tf, n.m.)
Case 1:15-cv-01244-NLH-JS Document 76 Filed 06/20/18 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 1172
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
WILLIAM COOPER,
HONORABLE NOEL L. HILLMAN
Plaintiff,
1:15-cv-01244-NLH-JS
v.
OPINION
COUNTY OF CAMDEN, et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
WILLIAM COOPER
186629C/974700
New Jersey State Prison
P.O. BOX 861
TRENTON, NJ 08625
Appearing pro se
PARKER MCKAY, P.A.
Elizabeth M. Garcia, Esq.
9000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300
P.O. Box 5054
Mount Laurel, New Jersey 08054
Counsel for Defendant Peter Farlow Sr.
THE VIGILANTE LAW FIRM, P.C.
Jacqueline M. Vigilante, Esq.
99 North Main Street
Mullica Hill, New Jersey 08062
Counsel for Defendant John Vernon
THE OFFICE OF CAMDEN COUNTY COUNSEL
Anne E. Walters, Assistant County Counsel
520 Market Street, 14th Floor Camden, New Jersey 08102
Counsel for Defendants County of Camden, Camden County
Correctional Facility, Correctional Officer Nnakuru R.
Chukudi, and Warden Eric M. Taylor
Case 1:15-cv-01244-NLH-JS Document 76 Filed 06/20/18 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 1173
HILLMAN, District Judge
This matter concerns claims by Plaintiff, appearing pro se,
arising from an alleged physical assault by Camden County
Correctional Facility (“CCCF”) corrections officers while
Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee.
Previously, on January 30,
2017, all Defendants moved for summary judgment in their favor
on all of Plaintiff’s claims against them.
On September 13,
2017, the Court denied without prejudice Defendants’ motions,
and afforded Plaintiff 45 days to file an opposition.
No. 69.)
(Docket
On October 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for an
extension of time to file his opposition (Docket No. 70), and
the Court granted his request on October 23, 2017, providing him
with an additional 45 days from the date of the Order (Docket
No. 72), thus making Plaintiff’s opposition due on December 7,
2017.
Plaintiff failed to file an opposition.
On May 11, 2018, the Court granted summary judgment in
favor of all Defendants except for corrections officer John
Vernon. (Docket No. 73.)
With regard to Vernon, the Court found
that: (1) Plaintiff had failed to identify specific facts and
affirmative evidence that contradicted those offered by Vernon,
and (2) if this evidence was deemed unrefuted, no genuine issue
of material fact would remain, and Vernon would be entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.
(Id. at 13.)
The Court noted that
ruling in favor of Vernon would be consistent with the
2
Case 1:15-cv-01244-NLH-JS Document 76 Filed 06/20/18 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 1174
undisputed evidence currently in the record and procedurally
within the scope of both the letter and spirit of Rule 56, but
afforded Plaintiff one last chance to respond to Vernon’s
motion.
(Id. at 13-14.)
Plaintiff’s response was due on June
11, 2018.
Instead of filing an opposition to Vernon’s summary
judgment motion, Plaintiff filed a letter, which the Court has
construed to make several requests.
(Docket No. 75.)
First, it
appears that Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider the grant of
summary judgment in favor of the Defendants other than Vernon, 1
and provide him with discovery.
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 judgment may be altered or amended only if the party
seeking reconsideration shows: (1) an intervening change in the
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was
not available when the court granted the motion for summary
judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or
fact or to prevent manifest injustice.
1
Id.
A motion for reconsideration may be treated as a motion to alter
or amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), or as a motion for
relief from judgment or order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), or it
may be filed pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(i).
3
Case 1:15-cv-01244-NLH-JS Document 76 Filed 06/20/18 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 1175
The Court does not find any of those circumstances to be
present here.
With regard to Plaintiff’s request for discovery,
and the purported lack of discovery serving to prejudice his
ability to respond to those Defendants’ motions, the Court does
not find Plaintiff’s argument compelling, particularly because
the case began in February 2015, Plaintiff participated in the
discovery process, all the discovery relative to the summary
judgment motions has been available since those motions were
filed January 30, 2017, and the Court has provided Plaintiff
with several lengthy extensions of time to respond.
Thus, the
Court’s decision as to those Defendants stands.
Second, Plaintiff’s letter requests a 60-day extension to
file his response to Vernon’s motion for summary judgment.
The
Court will grant that request.
Finally, Plaintiff’s letter requests that he be provided
with the docket sheets for his case, as well as for the case of
his cellmate, Sanders v. County of Camden, 1:15-cv-01129-NLH-JS.
The Court will also grant this request.
An appropriate Order will be entered.
Date:
June 20, 2018
At Camden, New Jersey
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?