Quirindongo v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 73

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying pltf's Motion for Reconsideration 69 Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 09/27/12 (ma, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DULCIDIO QUIRINDONGO,
Plaintiff
v.
WARDEN RICARDO MARTINEZ,
et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:10-CV-1742
(Judge Rambo)

MEMORANDUM
Before the court is Plaintiff Dulcidio Quirindongo’s motion for reconsideration
of the court’s memorandum and order of July 18, 2012 (Doc. 66), granting
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in favor of Defendants Martinez,
Holtzapple, Pigos, Rey, Russell, Conlin, Potope, and Donlin. (Doc. 69.) For the
reasons that follow, the instant motion (Doc. 69) will be denied.

I.

Background
In his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleged that on October 7, 2008, he

underwent a “radical prostatectomy that required major surgery.” (Doc. 32 at 1.)
Following his surgery, he returned to USP-Allenwood. (See id.) In connection with
his post-surgery care at USP-Allenwood, Plaintiff claimed that “(1) [Defendants]
failed to provide the proper standard of care; (2) [Defendants] willfully neglected to
maintain a proper delivery of aftercare; (3) the onsite medical staff at USP-Allenwood

was untrained to deal with the seriousness of the medical issues of the plaintiff; (4)
plaintiff was not provided with the minimal standard of care for a human being; (5)
and [Defendants] kept the plaintiff in a contaminated, unsanitary environment, postoperatorily, that caused the plaintiff a major infection.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff further
alleged that the lack of Spanish-speaking personnel at USP-Allenwood delayed his
care because personnel could not understand his complaints. (Id. at 3.) As relief,
Plaintiff sought an order directing that medical staff be trained to speak Spanish at
USP-Allenwood, monetary damages for pain and suffering, and an evidentiary
hearing. (Id. at 5.)
On October 31, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for summary
judgment. (Doc. 49.) After the motion was ripe for disposition, the court issued a
memorandum and order on July 18, 2012, granting summary judgment in favor of
Defendants Martinez, Holtzapple, Pigos, Rey, Russell, Conlin, Potope, and Donlin.
(Doc. 66.)
Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on August 21, 2012. (Doc. 69.) In
the motion, Plaintiff claims that the Defendants submitted fraudulent and altered
medical records in support of their motion for summary judgment and, therefore, the
court should reverse its decision in favor of Defendants. (Id.) Defendants filed a brief
in opposition on September 6, 2012. (Doc. 71.) Plaintiff filed a reply brief on

2

September 20, 2012. (Doc. 72.) Thus, the motion is ripe for disposition. After
careful review, the court will deny the motion for reconsideration.

II.

Discussion
Initially, the court notes that the instant motion for reconsideration is untimely.

Pursuant to Middle District Local Rule 7.10, “Any motion for reconsideration or
reargument must be accompanied by a supporting brief and filed within fourteen (14)
days after the entry of the order concerned.” Plaintiff certifies that he placed his
motion for reconsideration in the prison mailbox on August 17, 2012. (See Doc. 69 at
19.) As the court’s memorandum and order granting summary judgment was issued
on July 18, 2012, (Doc. 66), the instant motion has clearly been filed out of time.
Defendants, however, have filed a brief in opposition addressing the merits of
Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. 71.) For purposes of clarity, the court will address the
merits of Plaintiff’s motion.
A motion for reconsideration is governed by Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, which allows a party to move to alter or amend a judgment within
twenty-eight (28) days of entry. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “The purpose of a motion for
reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985).
A judgment may be altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration
3

establishes at least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the
court entered judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to
prevent manifest injustice. Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d
Cir. 1999) (citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194,
1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). “A motion for reconsideration is not to be used as a means to
reargue matters already argued and disposed of or as an attempt to relitigate a point of
disagreement between the Court and the litigant.” Ogden v. Keystone Residence, 226
F. Supp. 2d 588, 606 (M.D. Pa. 2002) (citation omitted). “[R]econsideration motions
may not be used to raise new arguments or present evidence that could have been
raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Hill v. Tammac Corp., No. 1:05-CV-1148,
2006 WL 529044, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 3, 2006). Lastly, reconsideration of judgment
is an extraordinary remedy, and such motion should be granted sparingly. D’Angio v.
Borough of Nescopeck, 56 F. Supp. 2d 502, 504 (M.D. Pa. 1999).
Applying the standard used when a party seeks reconsideration, the court
concludes that Plaintiff has not demonstrated any of the applicable grounds for
reconsideration. Initially, the court finds no intervening change in controlling law and
no error of law or fact. While the court recognizes that it referred to the medical
records submitted by Defendants in support of summary judgment as “disorganized
and confusing, at best,” (Doc. 66 at 3 n.3), this observation does not in itself support
4

Plaintiff’s argument that the court relied on “fraudulent and altered documents,” (Doc.
69 at 1). Without more, Plaintiff’s claim that the medical records were fraudulent or
altered is unfounded. Further, Plaintiff’s restated arguments regarding his claim of
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs do not constitute new evidence
that was unavailable when the court determined that Plaintiff had failed to establish an
Eighth Amendment violation. While Plaintiff may disagree with the findings and
outcome, the court finds no basis to reconsider the earlier decision. Accordingly, the
motion for reconsideration will be denied.
An appropriate order will issue.

s/Sylvia H. Rambo
United States District Judge
Dated: September 27, 2012.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DULCIDIO QUIRINDONGO,
Plaintiff
v.
WARDEN RICARDO MARTINEZ,
et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:10-CV-1742
(Judge Rambo)

ORDER
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 69) is DENIED.

s/Sylvia H. Rambo
United States District Judge
Dated: September 27, 2012.