Locke v. Department of Corrections SCI Dallas et al
Filing
73
MEMORANDUM re pltf's MOTION to Amend/Correct 72 (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 8/20/15. (ma)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANTHONY LOCKE,
Plaintiff
v.
C.O. UBER, et al.,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL NO. 1:12-1524
(Judge Rambo)
MEMORANDUM
Before the court is Plaintiff Anthony Locke’s motion entitled “For
Amendment of Judgment and/or to Alter and Relief from Judgment” (Doc. 72). He
brings this motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(c) and 60(b).
Locke, an inmate at a state correctional institution, initiated this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by filing a pro se complaint (Doc. 1) on
August 6, 2012 as amended September 5, 2012 (Doc. 8). On June 12, 2013, this court
granted Defendants’ motion to partially dismiss the amended complaint with regard to
Locke’s claims relating to the handling of his administrative grievances. (See Doc.
25.) On March 20, 2015, this court granted summary judgment as to the remaining
defendants on Locke’s claims of a violation of his property rights, and his access to
court. Because Locke failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies, by
memorandum and order dated March 20, 2015 (Docs. 65 & 66), summary judgment
was granted to the remaining defendants. It is this order which Locke seeks to have
amended, altered, or set aside.
Locke brings his motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedures
59(c) and 60(b). These are improper methods for challenging this court’s ruling.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(c) pertains to a motion for a new trial based on
affidavits. This is not applicable to this case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)
has six subdivisions. Locke does not state from which subdivision he is seeking
relief.
It is this court’s opinion that the proper rule to challenge this court’s
memorandum and order of March 20, 2015 (Docs. 65 & 66) should be by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).1 Locke had 28 days from the filing of the order (Doc.
66). According to his unsigned certificate of service, Locke deposited the document
in the mail on April 24, 2015. (See Doc. 72 at p. 10.) Pursuant to the federal prisoner
“mailbox rule,” a document is deemed filed on the date it is given to prison officials
for mailing. Jenkins v. Superintendent of Laurel Highlands, 705 F.3d 80, 84 n.2 (3d
Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). Thus, Locke’s motion is untimely as it was placed in the
mail more than 28 days after the issuance of the order to which he seeks
reconsideration.
To the extent that other legal minds might disagree with this court’s
finding of untimeliness, the Rule 59(e) motion will be addressed on the merits. A
Rule 59(e) motion is a motion of limited utility. It is used 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 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)).
“Federal courts have long recognized that they have an obligation to look behind the label
of a motion filed by a pro se litigant and determine whether the motion is, in effect, cognizable under a
different remedial statutory framework.” United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 (3d Cir. 1999).
1
In essence, Locke argues that the DC ADM-804 policy has failed or is
inadequate to ensure remedies to exhaust caused by circumstance out of an inmate’s
immediate control. His argument is difficult to fathom. However, the opinions of this
court (Docs. 25 and 66) addressed Locke’s complaint concerning administrative
remedies.
A motion for reconsideration cannot 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).
The issues raised in the motion for reconsideration are issues that could
have been raised in response to both motions for summary judgment. Thus, the
motion for reconsideration will be denied. An appropriate order will be issued.
s/Sylvia H. Rambo
United States District Judge
Dated: August 20, 2015.
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?