PARKS v. SAMUELS et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying pltf's mtn for reconsideration 14 Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 09/18/13. (ma)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DARRELL JAMES PARKS,
Plaintiff
v.
CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR., et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:13-CV-00742
(Judge Rambo)

MEMORANDUM
Before the court is Plaintiff Darrell James Park’s motion for reconsideration of
the court’s memorandum and order of April 22, 2013 (Doc. 11), dismissing Plaintiff’s
§ 1983 complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) without
prejudice to refiling if Plaintiff submits the full filing fee. For the reasons that follow,
the instant motion (Doc. 11) will be denied.

I.

Background
Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg,

Pennsylvania (“USP-Lewisburg”), initiated this action with a complaint filed pursuant
to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 22, 2013. (Doc. 1.) In the
complaint, Plaintiff alleged that since 1998, BOP officials, including the Defendants,
have been denying him an adequate law library, legal assistance, indigent free copies
of legal documents, and privacy, for purposes of pursuing his legal claims in courts,
including those in the District of Columbia. (Id.) He also claimed that because the

BOP is requiring that he pay for copies, he has been unable to purchase from the
commissary “soap, toothpaste, lotion, deodorant, shampoo, conditioner, hair grease
(necessities), stamps, pens, etc.,” as well as legal materials. (Id. at 9.) He also
complained that he has been denied adequate access to legal research because USPLewisburg requires prisoners to do legal research on a computer rather than with
books. (Id. at 10.) As relief, Plaintiff sought punitive and compensatory damages, as
well as declaratory relief. Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Doc. 8.)
After screening the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996
(“PLRA”), the court concluded that the complaint should be dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to the “three strikes” provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Specifically, the court found the following:
Not only has Plaintiff filed at least three actions or appeals that have been
dismissed as frivolous or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, but he erroneously asserts that he has not filed such actions or
appeals. Further, he does not assert that he is seeking relief because he is
under imminent danger of serious physical injury. As a result, Plaintiff
will not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. Notably, Plaintiff’s
recent attempts to proceed in forma pauperis with civil actions in other
courts have also been rejected. Specifically, on April 1, 2013, the United
States District Court for the Central District of California issued an order
denying a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff
in that court pursuant to the “three strikes” provision in 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). See Parks v. Ferguson, Civ. No. 5:13-CV-00470 (C.D. Ca. Apr.
1, 2013). The court here will proceed in the same manner. However,

2

should Plaintiff desire to file an action and pay the full filing fee of
$350.00 prior to commencing suit, he may do so.
(Doc. 11 at 4-5.) In addition, the court cited several actions filed by Plaintiff which
had been previously dismissed on grounds that they were frivolous or failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. (See id. at 2-3) (citing Parks v. Reans, No.
12-5671 (6th Cir. Jan. 7, 2013); Parks v. Bledsoe, Civ. No. 12-CV-0848 (M.D. Pa.
Aug. 29, 2012) (dismissed habeas petition “without prejudice to Parks’ right to pursue
his claim in a properly filed civil rights action” since “his claims [were] not properly
asserted in a habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241”); Parks v. Reans, Civ.
No. 6:10-CV-000278 (E.D. Ken. May 21, 2012); Parks v. Williams, Civ. No. 1:99CV-02420 (D.D.C. July 15, 2004); Parks v. Williams, Civ. No. 01-CV-0287 (E.D. Va.
Nov. 6, 2001)).
Consequently, Plaintiff has filed the instant motion for reconsideration. (Doc.
14.) In his motion, Plaintiff disputes whether the cases reviewed and cited by the
court in support of the “three strikes” provision can be properly classified as strikes.
He also claims that the court has held him to a heightened standard of pleading. After
careful review, the court will deny the motion for reconsideration.

II.

Discussion

3

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
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).
4

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. Additionally, Plaintiff’s arguments regarding whether the
cases cited by the court constitute “strikes” for purposes of the “three strikes”
provision do not constitute new evidence that was unavailable when the court
determined that these cases were in fact “strikes,” as the court has already reviewed
these cases. Further, there is simply nothing to support Plaintiff’s nonsensical
argument that the court held him to a heightened pleading standard in its review of the
complaint pursuant to the PLRA. 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
United States District Judge
Dated: September 18, 2013.

5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DARRELL JAMES PARKS,
Plaintiff
v.
CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR., et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:13-CV-00742
(Judge Rambo)

ORDER
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 14) is DENIED.

s/Sylvia H. Rambo
United States District Judge
Dated: September 18, 2013.