GUILLE v. JOHNSON et al
Filing
67
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 12/11/2019. (jdb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ADRIAN GUILLE,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 18-1472 (PGS) (ZNQ)
V.
STEVEN JO1-ll\JSON, et al.,
OPINION
Defendants.
PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff is a state inmate incarcerated at New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, New Jersey.
He is proceeding prose with an amended civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§
1983. On May 13, 2019, this Court screened the amended complaint and proceeded several
claims, including claims of excessive force, failure to let plaintiff decontaminate himself from
pepper-spray and forcing plaintiff to remain in dirty clothing, retaliation, claims related to
contaminated drinking water and failure to remedy vermin, deliberate indifference to plaintiffs
medical needs and failure to feed plaintiff.
On May 31, 2019, this Court received plaintiffs motion for reconsideration of the
screening opinion coupled with plaintiffs request for the appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF
12). For the following reasons, the motion for reconsideration will be denied. Plaintiffs request
for the appointment of pro bono counsel will be denied without prejudice.
II.
DISCUSSION
A. Motion for Reconsideration
Local Civil Rule 7.1 allows a party to seek a motion for re-argument or reconsideration of
“matter[s] or controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge 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.” US. ex rel. Shumann v. Astrazeneca Pharm. L.P., 769 F.3d
837, 848-49 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Max’s Seafood Cafe 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). “The Court will grant a motion for reconsideration only where its prior decision has
overlooked a factual or legal issue that may alter the disposition of the matter. The word
overlooked’ is the operative term in the Rule.” Andreyko v. Sunrise Sr. Living, Inc., 993 F.
Supp. 2d 475, 478 (D.N.J. 2014) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Mere
disagreement with the Court’s decision is not a basis for reconsideration. United States v.
Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999).
2
Plaintiff asserts that this Court “overlooked” that prison officials keep spraying him with
mace in retaliation for filing complaints. (See ECF 12 at 8). Plaintiffs amended complaint is
fifty pages, includes a plethora of factual allegations as well as a section entitled “Claims for
Relief.” Plaintiffs allegations involving being sprayed with mace are within a section headlined
“Uses of Force.” (See ECF 7 at 15-16). In that section, plaintiff alleged that officers Smith,
Martini and Piazza were involved in spraying him with mace. (See id.) Thereafter, in his
“Claims for Relief,” plaintiff alleged that Officers Martini, Piazza and Sgt. Smith violated his
Eighth Amendment rights by spraying him with mace. (See id. at 44). This Court permitted
plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims against these three officers to proceed past screening. (See
ECF 10 at 2).
With respect to retaliation, plaintiff alleged that Sgt. Smith encited other officers to
retaliate against him. (See ECF 7 at 45). Plaintiffs retaliation claim was also proceeded, but only
against Smith because that is the only officer plaintiff alleged with any specificity who
specifically retaliated against plaintiff. (See ECF 10 at 3). Because plaintiffs amended complaint
does not specifically allege that officers Martini and Piazza used mace against plaintiff to
retaliate against him, this Court did not “overlook” proceeding a retaliation claim against other
officers based on what was specifically alleged in the amended complaint. Therefore, plaintiffs
motion for reconsideration is denied.
B. Request to Appoint Counsel
Plaintiff has also requested the appointment of counsel. Indigent persons raising civil
rights claims have no absolute right to counsel. See Farham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456—57
(3d Cir. 1997). As a threshold matter, there must be some merit in fact or law to the claims the
plaintiff is attempting to assert. See Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir. 1993). In
determining whether to appoint counsel, a court considers the following: (1) the plaintiffs ability
to present his or her own case; (2) the complexity of the legal issues; (3) the degree to which
factual investigation will be necessary and the ability of the plaintiff to pursue such investigation;
(4) the amount a case is likely to turn on credibility determinations; (5) whether the case will
require the testimony of expert witnesses; and (6) whether the plaintiff can attain and afford
counsel on his own behalf. See id. at 155—56, 157 n. 5; see also Cuevas v. United States, 422 F.
App’x 142, 144—45 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (reiterating the Tabron factors). The power to
appoint counsel lies solely with the discretion of this Court. See Parham, 126 F.3d at 457.
Many of plaintiffs claims have made it past screening. However, based on considering
the other factors outlined above, this Court denies plaintiffs motion for the appointment of pro
bono counsel without prejudice at this time.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is denied and his
request for the appointment of pro bono counsel is denied without prejudice. An appropriate
order will be entered.
DATED: December, 2019
PETER G. SHERIDAN
United States District Judge
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?