HARGROVE v. SANTIAGO et al

Filing 40

OPINION and ORDER denying Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 4/19/16. (gh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Civ. No. 14-4754 (WJM)

SHARODD HARGROVE,
Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER
v.
ANGEL SANTIAGO, et al.,
Defendant.
This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Sharodd Hargrove’s
motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), for reconsideration of this
Court’s denial of his second motion for appointment of pro bono counsel under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(1). The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts of the
case and prior decisions of the Court. For the reasons stated below, the Court will DENY
the motion.
Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the Court’s decision is insufficient to warrant relief
under Rule 60(b). See Max’s Seafood Café by Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669,
677 (3d Cir. 1999) (A motion for reconsideration may be granted only if: (1) there has been
an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) evidence not available when the Court
issued the subject order has become available; or (3) it is necessary to correct a clear error
of law or fact to prevent manifest injustice); Boretsky v. Governor of New Jersey, 433 F.
App’x 73, 78 (3d Cir. 2011) (A party’s mere disagreement with a decision of the district
court is insufficient to warrant reconsideration). Rather, Plaintiff’s newest filing confirms
that he is more than capable of presenting his own case at this stage of the litigation (the
first factor under Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153 (3d Cir. 1993)).
Thus, for the above reasons and for good cause shown;
IT IS on this 19th day of April 2016, hereby,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
/s/ William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
1