Hinton v. Henderson et al

Filing 51

ORDER denying 33 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 5/31/11. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(gpb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:10cv505
CHARLES EVERETTE HINTON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MICHAEL W. HENDERSON;
)
TERESA BROADWAY; and
)
ANDREW RUDGERS,
)
Probation Officer,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [# 33].
Previously, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Order
Denying Mot. Appointment Counsel, Feb. 3, 2011.)

The Court found that the

appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) was not appropriate in this case.
(Id.) Plaintiff now moves the Court to reconsider its Order denying his Motion for
Appointment of Counsel. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion [# 33].
I.

Analysis

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not address motions for
reconsideration, the filing of such motions are common in federal courts. Directv, Inc.
v. Hart, 366 F. Supp. 2d 315, 317 (E.D.N.C. 2004); Wiseman v. First Citizens Bank
-1-

& Trust Co., 215 F.R.D. 507, 509 (W.D.N.C. 2003) (Thornburg, J.) Courts, however,
only allow motions to reconsider in limited circumstances. Wiseman, 215 F.R.D. at
509; Madison River Mgmt. Co. v. Bus. Mgmt. Software Corp., 402 F. Supp. 2d 617,
619 (M.D.N.C. 2005). The purpose of a motion to reconsider is to present the Court
with newly discovered evidence or to correct manifest errors of law in a prior order.
Directv, 366 F. Supp. 2d at 317; see also Woodward v. Daugherty, No. 5:11cv8, 2011
WL 934093, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 15, 2011) (Conrad, C.J.); E.E.O.C. v. McGee
Brothers Co., Inc., No. 3:10cv142, 2011 WL 1542148, at *3 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 21,
2011) (Whitney, J.) Thus, a motion to reconsider is not proper where it only asks the
Court to rethink its prior decision, Wiseman, 215 F.R.D. at 509; Directv, 366 F. Supp.
2d at 317, or presents a “better or more compelling argument that the party could have
presented in the original briefs” on the matter, Madison River, 402 F. Supp. 2d at 619.
A motion to reconsider is appropriate where:
the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision
outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has
made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension ... or a controlling or
significant change in the law or facts since the submission of the issue
to the Court has occurred. Such problems rarely arise and the motion to
reconsider should be equally rare.
Wiseman, 215 F.R.D. at 509 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing,
Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983).
Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating why reconsideration of the
-2-

Court’s prior Order is necessary; Plaintiff has not shown that reconsideration is
necessary to correct some manifest error or because of newly discovered evidence.
And as numerous courts in this Circuit have explained, a motion to reconsider is not
proper to “merely ask the court ‘to rethink what the Court had already thought
through-rightly or wrongly.’” Directv 366 F. Supp. 2d at 317 (quoting Harsco Corp.
v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3rd Cir. 1985)). As the Court set forth in its prior
Order, the appointment of counsel for Plaintiff is not warranted in this case under
Section 1915(e)(1). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider
[# 33].
II.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider [# 33].

Signed: May 31, 2011

-3-