BLACKWELL v. COHEN et al

Filing 20

OPINION. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 2/1/2019. (rtm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

INSPIRATION BLACKWELL,

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 16-5342 (JBS-AMD)

v.
WARDEN GERALDINE COHEN, et
al.,

OPINION

Defendants.

APPEARANCES:
Inspiration Blackwell, Plaintiff pro se
#1161920/160249C
Southern State Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
UNIT 10L-A-lup /Compound B
4295 Route 47
Delmont, NJ 08314
SIMANDLE, U.S. District Judge:
INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Inspiration
Blackwell’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal
of his civil rights complaint under Local Civil Rule 41.1(a).
[Docket Entry 16]. For the reasons expressed below, the motion
is granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a complaint against Atlantic County Justice
Facility (“ACJF”) Warden Geraldine Cohen, the ACJF Medical

Staff, the Atlantic County Freeholders, Atlantic County
Executive Dennis Levison, Freeholder Chairman Frank Formica, and
medical providers CFG on September 1, 2016. [Docket Entry 1].
Plaintiff alleged he broke his right hand on June 26, 2016 when
he slammed it into a door. [Id. ¶ 4]. Medical staff examined him
approximately an hour later and transported him to a hospital.
[Id.]. He was released from the hospital and taken back to ACJF
“where no compliance was with the hospital’s orders, I complain,
stay in pain . . . .” [Id.]. He returned to the hospital a few
weeks later where his hand was rebroken “because proper care had
not been applied . . . .” [Id.]. He was prescribed “therapy,”
but he never received it. He stated he was placed in solitary
confinement for complaining. [Id.]. Plaintiff further alleged he
wrote to Warden Cohen, spoke with officers, and tried to speak
with the director, but he was “thrown out of medical.” [Id.]. He
also claimed the facility “stopped [his] communication.” [Id.].
The Court granted Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis
application, [Docket Entry 4], and screened the complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, [Docket Entry 7]. Plaintiff’s
deliberate indifference claims against Warden Cohen and his
deliberate indifference and medical malpractice claims against
the ACJF medical staff were permitted to proceed. [Docket Entry
8].

2

The Clerk of the Court sent Plaintiff U.S. Marshal Form 285
on August 31, 2017 to be completed and returned by Plaintiff so
defendants could be served by the Marshals. [Docket Entry 9]. On
December 1, 2017, the Clerk filed a certification that Plaintiff
had not returned the completed 285 forms. [Docket Entry 10].
After more than 90 days of inactivity in the case, the Court
issued a Notice of Call for Dismissal under Local Civil Rule
41.1(a) on May 3, 2018. [Docket Entry 11]. That notice was sent
to the address on file for Plaintiff, the ACJF, and was returned
as undeliverable on May 15, 2018. [Docket Entry 12]. The case
was dismissed on May 29, 2018. [Docket Entry 13]. That order was
also returned as undeliverable on June 5, 2018. [Docket Entry
14].
Plaintiff contacted the Court on October 15, 2018 inquiring
as to the status of his case. [Docket Entry 15]. On November 8,
2018, he filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the
dismissal order. [Docket Entry 16]. He states the matter should
be reopened because he did not receive the Notice of Call for
Dismissal. [Id. at 1]. He states he was transferred from ACJF to
CRAF on April 27, 2018. [Id.].
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Local Civil Rule 7.1 allows a party to seek a motion for
reargument or reconsideration of “matter[s] or controlling
decisions which the party believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge
3

has overlooked . . . .” Local Civ. R. 7.1(i). Whether to grant a
motion for reconsideration is a matter within the Court's
discretion, but it should only be granted where such facts or
legal authority were indeed presented but overlooked. See DeLong
v. Raymond Int'l Inc., 622 F.2d 1135, 1140 (3d Cir. 1980),
overruled on other grounds by Croker v. Boeing Co., 662 F.2d 975
(3d Cir. 1981); see also Williams v. Sullivan, 818 F. Supp. 92,
93 (D.N.J. 1993).
To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must
show:
(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2)
the availability of new evidence that was not available
when the court ... [rendered the judgment in question];
or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact
or to prevent manifest injustice.

U.S. ex rel. Shumann v. Astrazeneca Pharm. L.P., 769 F.3d 837,
848-49 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou–
Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)). The
standard of review involved in a motion for reconsideration is
high and relief is to be granted sparingly. United States v.
Jones, 158 F.R.D. 309, 314 (D.N.J. 1994).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff argues he should not have his case dismissed
because he did not receive the notice sent by the Court on May
8, 2018 after he left the ACJF on April 27, 2018. [Docket Entry

4

16 at 2]. “Plaintiff is without control over the ‘mail delivery
service’ to prisoner/plaintiff to receive or send legal mailing
in or outside the Department Of Corrections. . . . I shouldn’t
have to forfeit my ‘Civil Action’ due to uncontrollable
reasons.” [Id.].
The undeliverable mail was not entirely out of Plaintiff’s
control. It is the responsibility of every unrepresented party,
whether incarcerated or not, to keep this Court apprised of his
or her current mailing address. Local Civ. R. 10.1(a). This is
Plaintiff’s responsibility and his responsibility alone. See
Briscoe v. Klaus, 538 F.3d 252, 258-59 (3d Cir. 2008) (“It is
logical to hold a pro se plaintiff personally responsible for
delays in his case because a pro se plaintiff is solely
responsible for the progress of his case ....”).
That being said, the Court will reopen the matter. The
Court found sufficient merit in the complaint to survive
screening under § 1915, the dismissal was without prejudice, and
the Court must be lenient with pro se parties. The interests of
justice therefore favor reopening the case and proceeding with
service on defendants. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must
promptly advise the Court of any future changes in his address.
The Court will instruct the Clerk to send another U.S. Marshal
Form 285 to Plaintiff for him to complete and return. No part of

5

this Order shall be construed as precluding defendants from
raising any relevant affirmative defense.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the motion for
reconsideration is granted. An accompanying Order will be
entered.

February 1, 2019
Date

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
U.S. District Judge

6