United States of America v. Sollenberger et al

Filing 115

ORDER construing Sollenberger's letter 113 as motion for reconsideration & DENYING same as so construed. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 8/9/17. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff
v.
AVERY SOLLENBERGER, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-1488
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 9th day of August, 2017, upon consideration of the letter
(Doc. 113) filed pro se by defendant Avery Sollenberger (“Sollenberger”) on July
27, 2017, requesting that the court mark all debts owed by defendants to the United
States government satisfied; remove all tax liens on defendants’ properties; allow
defendants to retain ownership of said properties; and stop monthly payments to
the Clerk of Court, (id.), and the court construing Sollenberger’s correspondence
as a motion for reconsideration of our July 13, 2017 orders (Docs. 105, 106) denying
Sollenberger’s motion (Doc. 94) to vacate the order of foreclosure and sale entered
sub judice as well as defendants’ joint motion (Doc. 99) for preliminary injunction
and temporary restraining order, 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, Civ.
No. 12-CV-1530, 2014 WL 3534567, at *7 (M.D. Pa. July 16, 2014) (quoting Cont’l
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 previously resolved by the court, see Boretsky v. Governor of N.J., 433 F.
App’x 73, 78 (3d Cir. 2011) (citation omitted), 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 it appearing that Sollenberger
bases his instant request on arguments identical to or expanding upon those raised
before––and rejected by––the undersigned throughout the course of this litigation,
and neither identifies nor substantiates a clear error of law in the court’s decisions,
and accordingly fails to satisfy the exacting standard of review applied to motions
for reconsideration, it is hereby ORDERED that Sollenberger’s letter (Doc. 113) is
CONSTRUED as a motion for reconsideration and is DENIED as so construed.

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