Milhouse v. Bledsoe et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING: 9 MOTION for Reconsideration re 8 Order Dismissing Case, filed by Kareem Hassan Milhouse. Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 3/8/12. (pw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KAREEM HASSAN MILHOUSE,
Plaintiff
v.
WARDEN B.A. BLEDSOE, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:11-CV-2110
(Judge Rambo)

MEMORANDUM
Before the court is Plaintiff Kareem Hassan Milhouse’s motion for
reconsideration of the court’s memorandum and order of December 20, 2011 (Doc. 9),
dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g), (Doc. 8). For the reasons that follow, the instant motion (Doc. 9)
will be denied.
I.

Background
Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary at Allenwood

in White Deer, Pennsylvania, initiated this action with a civil rights complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1346 and 2680 on November 10, 2011. (Doc. 1.) In the complaint, Plaintiff claims
that Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and
negligent by not assigning him to a lower bunk despite his “serious back condition”

requiring such an assignment. Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Doc. 5.) Subsequently, the court screened the complaint pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), or the “three strikes rule.” Under the “three strikes
rule,” an inmate who has had three prior actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous,
malicious, or for failing to state a viable claim, may not proceed in a civil action in
forma pauperis “unless the prisoner is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The “three strikes” provision does not bar disqualified
inmates from filing additional actions, but it does deny them the opportunity to
proceed in forma pauperis, thus requiring inmates to pay the full filing fee prior to
commencing suit. After reviewing the complaint, the court determined that not only
had Plaintiff already filed no less than four (4) civil actions or appeals that were
dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, but also Plaintiff’s allegations
relating to a “serious back condition” did not satisfy the threshold criterion of the
imminent danger exception of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (See Doc. 8.)
Consequently, Plaintiff has filed the instant motion for reconsideration. (Doc.
9.) In his motion, Plaintiff argues that the case should be reopened because (1) he was
not granted in forma pauperis status in the previous cases cited by the court in its

2

December 20, 2011 order, and (2) he is, in fact, in imminent danger due to his back
condition. After careful review, the court will deny the motion.

II.

Discussion
A motion for reconsideration is a device of limited utility. Its purpose 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). Accordingly, a party seeking
reconsideration must demonstrate at least one of the following grounds prior to the
court altering, or amending, a standing judgment: (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 appropriate in instances 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.” Rohrbach v. AT&T Nassau Metals Corp., 902 F.
Supp. 523, 527 (M.D. Pa. 1995), vacated in part on other grounds on reconsideration,

3

915 F. Supp. 712 (M.D. Pa. 1996) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan
Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983). It may not be used as a means to
reargue unsuccessful theories, or argue new facts or issues that were not presented to
the court in the context of the matter previously decided. Drysdale v. Woerth, 153 F.
Supp. 2d 678, 682 (E.D. Pa. 2001). “Because federal courts have a strong interest in
the finality of judgments, motions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly.”
Continental Cas. Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc., 884 F. Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa.
1995).
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. The dockets in those cases cited by the court in its December
20, 2011 order indicate that the cases or appeals were dismissed as either frivolous or
for failure to state a claim. See Milhouse v. Levi, No. 07-4048 (3d Cir. Mar. 26,
2008); Milhouse v. Arbasak, et al., Nos. 09-2709 & 2858 (3d Cir. Apr. 28, 2010);
Milhouse v. Bledsoe, et al., Civ. No. 1:10-CV-0053 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 6, 2010); Milhouse
v. Levi, Civ. No. 2:09-CV-5363 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 24, 2010); Milhouse v. Jordan, et al.,
Civ. No. 1:09-CV-1365 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2011). Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status
in those cases is irrelevant; upon screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court need

only determine whether those cases were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a
claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (“In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or
appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has,
on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an
action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that
it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”).
Additionally, Plaintiff’s restated arguments regarding his “serious back condition” do
not constitute new evidence that was unavailable when the court determined that
Plaintiff’s allegations did not satisfy the threshold criterion of the imminent danger
exception of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 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
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge
Dated: March 8, 2012.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KAREEM HASSAN MILHOUSE, :
:
Plaintiff
:
:
v.
:
:
WARDEN B.A. BLEDSOE, et al., :
:
Defendants
:

CIVIL NO. 1:11-CV-02110
(Judge Rambo)

ORDER
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 9) is DENIED.

s/Sylvia H. Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge
Dated: March 8, 2012.