Hagan v. Beard et al

Filing 79

ORDER denying pltf's motion for reconsideration 69 of portion of court's 9/30/11 order (68). (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 11/15/11. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DAMONT HAGAN,
Plaintiff
v.
JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-0883
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 15th day of November, 2011, upon consideration of plaintiff’s
motion for reconsideration (Doc. 69) of the portion of this Court’s September 30,
2011 Order (Doc. 68) dismissing the claim against defendant Phelps on the grounds
that plaintiff failed to exhaust the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
grievance review process, and it appearing that plaintiff fails to demonstrate one of
three major grounds for reconsideration ((1) an intervening change in controlling
law; (2) the availability of new evidence [not available previously]; [or], (3) the need
to correct clear error [of law] or prevent manifest injustice.’”)), North River Ins. Co.
v. Cigna Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); 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.’”), but, rather simply disagrees with the Court’s determination of the
applicable administrative review process1, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s
motion (Doc. 69) is DENIED.

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

Plaintiff argues that the administrative procedure applicable to misconduct
proceedings, DC-ADM 801, rather than the procedure established to raise a
grievance, DC-ADM 804, should have governed whether he exhausted his
retaliation claim against defendant Phelps. Because this argument was not raised
in the brief filed in opposition to defendants’ motion, it will not be considered by the
Court. (Doc. 54).
1