Green v. Fisher et al
Filing
41
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying pltf's Motion for Reconsideration 40 Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 04/03/13 (ma)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CLYDE GREEN,
Plaintiff
v.
WARDEN JON FISHER, et al.,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL NO. 1:12-CV-0982
(Judge Rambo)
MEMORANDUM
Before the court is Plaintiff Clyde Green’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 40)
of the court’s memorandum and order of February 22, 2013, granting the motions to
dismiss and dismissing with prejudice in part and without prejudice in part Plaintiff’s
claims against various Defendants, (Doc. 37). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks
reconsideration of that order dismissing with prejudice his federal claim against
Defendant Corizon. (Doc. 40.) For the reasons that follow, the instant motion (Doc.
40) will be denied.
I.
Background
Plaintiff initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with a pro
se complaint on May 24, 2012. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff also asserted pendant state law
claims of negligence. Named as Defendants were Corizon, Inc., and two medical
providers at SCI-Smithfield (“Medical Defendants”), as well as a number of
Department of Corrections (“DOC”) employees located at SCI-Smithfield (“DOC
Defendants”). In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that he sustained injuries on two
separate occasions at SCI-Smithfield and has since been denied adequate medical care.
DOC Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and brief in support on
July 11, 2012. (Docs. 20 & 21.) Medical Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and
supporting brief on July 16, 2012. (Docs. 23 & 24.) After the motions were ripe for
disposition, the court issued a memorandum and order granting the motions to
dismiss, and dismissing with prejudice in part and without prejudice in part Plaintiff’s
claims against both DOC Defendants and Medical Defendants. (Doc. 37.) As to
Defendant Corizon, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claim against it because he
failed to allege the existence of any policy or custom attributable to Corizon with
respect to his medical care that deprived him of his federal constitutional rights. (Id.
at 18.) In doing so, the court concluded that Plaintiff had no support for an allegation
against Corizon; rather, he was seeking to impose liability on Corizon solely as the
entity responsible for providing health care to the population of SCI-Smithfield and as
the employer of those individuals that allegedly failed to provide him with adequate
medical care. (Id.) Thus, the federal claim against Corizon was dismissed with
prejudice. However, Corizon remains a party in the action because the court also
exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s pendant state law claims, and
afforded Plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint as to the claims of
negligence against all Defendants. (See id. at 25-30.)
2
Consequently, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s
memorandum and order on March 18, 2013. (Doc. 40.) In the motion, Plaintiff
requests that the court grant him leave to amend his complaint to reassert a federal
claim against Defendant Corizon.
II.
Discussion
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
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
3
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. Further, in his motion, Plaintiff simply restates his previous
claim against Defendant Corizon, a claim that this court has already determined to be
deficient.1 Moreover, this restatement of his federal claim against Defendant Corizon
does not constitute new evidence that was unavailable when the court determined that
Plaintiff had failed to establish a federal claim against this Defendant. 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.
In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff simply generally states, “Corizon was
named in plaintiff’s complaint as a defendant due to its policy, procedures and custom within SCISmithfield that caused plaintiff injury stemming from its direct involvement of denying and delaying
medical treatment of prisoner which extend beyond providing professionals to SCI-Smithfield.”
(Doc. 40.)
1
4
s/Sylvia H. Rambo
United States District Judge
Dated: April 3, 2013.
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CLYDE GREEN,
Plaintiff
v.
WARDEN JON FISHER, et al.,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL NO. 1:12-CV-0982
(Judge Rambo)
ORDER
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 40) is DENIED.
s/Sylvia H. Rambo
United States District Judge
Dated: April 3, 2013.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?