Mincy v. Klem et al

Filing 91

ORDER - It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Motions to amend/correct mot for reconsideration 78 & 87 GRANTED to extent that arguments raised therein have been considered by the Court.; 2. Motion for reconsideration 76 as amended/corrected by motions to amend/correct 78 & 87 is DENIED.; 3. Pltf's motion for ext of time to file reply br GRANTED - pltf's reply br 85 DEEMED acceptable for filing & has been considered by the Court in addresing pltf's motion for reconsideration. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 07/08/11. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HILTON KARRIEM MINCY,
Plaintiff
v.
SUPERINTENDENT EDWARD
KLEM, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:08-CV-0066
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 8th day of July, 2011, upon consideration of plaintiff’s motion
for reconsideration (Doc. 76) of this Court’s Memorandum and Order (Doc. 74)
denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting defendants’ motion
for summary judgment, and upon further consideration of plaintiff’s motions to
amend /correct (Docs. 78, 87) the motion for reconsideration, and it appearing that
plaintiff fails to demonstrate one of the three major grounds for reconsideration,
“(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence
[not available previously]1; [or], (3) the need to correct clear error [of law] or prevent

In furtherance of his retaliation claim, plaintiff argues that “on May 12, 2011"
he learned of new facts which would establish that there was a causal connection
between the exercise of his constitutional rights (participating in a deposition in
pursuit of a pending federal civil action)and the adverse action(movement from one
RHU pod and cell to another). (Doc. 88, at 2.) However, the “new evidence” upon
which he relies, a policy addressing record keeping in “D-Security Operations”, was
effective on September 1, 2000. There is nothing to indicate that this policy was not
available to plaintiff during the entire course of this litigation. Further, even if the
Court was to find credence in his argument, the claim would still fail. Significantly,
the retaliation claim failed in the first instance because it was determined
movement from one RHU pod and cell to another was insufficient to constitute
adverse action and the causal connection discussion was included to be thorough.
1

manifest injustice2,” North River Ins. Co. v. Cigna Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194,
1218 (3d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted), but, primarily seeks to reargue matters
already argued and disposed of because he disagrees with the Court’s
determination, see Waye v. First Citizen’s Nat’l Bank, 846 F. Supp. 310, 314 (M.D.
Pa.) (“A motion for reconsideration is not to be used to reargue matters already
argued and disposed of.”), aff’d, 31 F.3d 1174 (3d Cir. 1994); see also Database
America, Inc. v. Bellsouth Adver. & Publ’g Corp., 825 F. Supp. 1216, 1220 (D. N.J.
1993) (citations omitted) (“A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a
disagreement with the Court’s decision, and ‘recapitulation of the cases and
arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to
carry the moving party’s burden.’”), and the court recognizing that “[b]ecause
federal courts have a strong interest in the finality of judgments, motions for

His argument that he can now establish a causal connection does not remedy the
fact that plaintiff is unable to overcome the adverse action hurdle.
Plaintiff contends that the Court failed to address a number of his claims.
He first argues that there was no ruling on the facts or law relating to the
conspiracy claim against defendants Klem and Kane. He is mistaken. This claim is
addressed in the Memorandum. (Doc. 74, at 11-12.) Next, he suggests that the
Court failed to rule on his “constitutional tort” claim. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983
provides a cause of action against state actors who commit constitutional torts. In
his brief in support of his motion for summary judgment, under the “Constitutional
Tort Claim” heading, he makes reference to his retaliation claim. (Doc. 53, at 8.)
This claim was also thoroughly addressed by the Court. (Doc. 74, at 12-16.) Lastly,
he states that the court failed to rule on the claim that defendants Wetzel, Miknich,
Latham and Gilligan conspired to retaliate against him and punish him. Because
the retaliation claim had no merit these defendants could not have conspired to
retaliate and punish him. No further discussion was warranted.
2

2

reconsideration should be granted sparingly,” Continental Cas. Co. v. Diversified
Indus., Inc., 884 F. Supp. 937, 943 (E.D.Pa. 1995). it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The motions to amend/correct the motion for reconsideration (Docs.
78, 87) are GRANTED to the extent that the arguments raised therein
have been considered by the Court.

2.

The motion for reconsideration (Doc. 76), as amended/corrected by the
motions to amend/correct (Docs. 78, 87) is DENIED.

3.

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time fo file a reply brief is
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s reply brief (Doc. 85) is DEEMED acceptable for
filing and has been considered by the Court in addressing plaintiff’s
motion for reconsideration.

S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge