DEEN-MITCHELL v. LAPPIN et al

Filing 175

ORDER denying Deen-Mitchell's motion 173 for relief from judgment. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 9/24/14. (ki)

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

WALLACE DEEN-MITCHELL,
Plaintiff
v.
HARLEY G. LAPPIN and
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-01902
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of September, 2014, upon consideration of the motion
(Doc. 173) for relief from judgment filed September 4, 2014, by pro se plaintiff Wallace
Deen-Mitchell (“Deen-Mitchell”), wherein Deen-Mitchell asks the court to vacate its
order (Doc. 171) denying his appeal from Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick’s order
(Doc. 146) revoking his in forma pauperis status because Deen-Mitchell has had at least
three civil actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, see 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g) (“three strikes rule”), to wit: Mitchell v. Color Lab, No. 2:93-CV-4408
(D.N.J. Oct. 4, 1993) (dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)); Mitchell v.
Olds, No. 1:99-CV-1338 (D.D.C. June 11, 1999) (dismissed for failure to state a claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)); Mitchell v. Davis, No. 1:99-CV-2330 (D.D.C. Sept. 1,
1999) (dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)), and fails
to satisfy the imminent danger exception to the three strikes rule as articulated in AbdulAkbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 312 (3d Cir. 2001) (en banc), and thus is barred from
filing any future lawsuits in forma pauperis, and the court construing Deen-Mitchell’s

instant motion (Doc. 173) as a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order affirming
Judge Mehalchick’s decision, and the court emphasizing that the purpose of a motion for
reconsideration is to present newly discovered evidence or to correct manifest errors of
law or fact, see Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677-78 (3d Cir. 1999);
Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), and noting that the court
possesses an inherent power to reconsider its orders “when it is consonant with justice
to do so,” United States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d 600, 605 (3d Cir. 1973); Alea N. Am. Ins. Co. v.
Salem Masonry Co. 301 F. App’x 119, 121 (3d Cir. 2008), but that such relief is to be
granted “sparingly,” Montanez v. York City, No. 12-CV-1530, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
96521, at *20 (M.D. Pa. July 16, 2014) (quoting Continental Casualty Co. v. Diversified
Indus., Inc., 884 F. Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995)), and that a party may not invoke a
motion for reconsideration as a means to relitigate matters of disagreement with the
court, see Boretsky v. Governor of N.J., 433 F. App’x 73, 78 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting
Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2007)), nor is a motion for
reconsideration “an opportunity for a party to present previously available evidence or
new arguments,” Federico v. Charterers Mut. Assurance Ass’n Ltd., 158 F. Supp. 2d 565,
577 (E.D. Pa. 2001); see also Harsco Corp., 779 F.2d at 909, and the court reaffirming the
Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Deen-Mitchell is barred from proceeding in forma
pauperis, and that no argument raised or evidence identified in Deen-Mitchell’s instant
motion compels a contrary result, and concluding that Deen-Mitchell has had a full and

2

fair opportunity to litigate this issue, raised and briefed multiple times by the parties
throughout this litigation, (see Doc. 129 (initial brief opposing government’s motion to
revoke in forma pauperis status), Doc. 132 (additional opposition brief), Doc. 144 (sur
reply brief opposing government’s initial motion), Doc. 147-48 (briefing on request to
vacate Magistrate Judge’s order granting government’s motion)), and has failed to take
advantage of several additional opportunities to show cause why the cases identified by
the government and the court should not be considered strikes against him under the
three strikes rule, (see Doc. 133 (ordering Deen-Mitchell to show cause why three strikes
rule does not apply); Doc. 139 (granting Deen-Mitchell’s motion for extension of time to
respond to show cause order)), it is hereby ORDERED that Deen-Mitchell’s motion (Doc.
173) for relief from judgment is DENIED.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania