Pearson v. Williams

Filing 47

MEMORANDUM re pltf's mnt for reconsideration 43 , Pltf's amended complaint 45 , and dfts' mtn to Dismiss 46 (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 9/1/15. (ma)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANTONIO PEARSON
Plaintiff
vs.
THOMAS WILLIAMS,
UNIT MANAGER
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:CV-13-1988
(Judge Caldwell)

MEMORANDUM
I.

Introduction
The pro se plaintiff, Antonio Pearson, has filed a motion (Doc. 43) for

reconsideration of the court’s order dated March 11, 2015. That order granted defendants’
motion to dismiss the complaint but allowed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, with the
amended complaint being limited to his First Amendment claim that defendants Williams
and Aickey initiated the revocation of his single-cell status for retaliatory reasons. (Doc.
42). For the reasons that follow, the motion for reconsideration will be denied.

II.

Standard of Review
The March 11, 2015, order was not final because, having granted leave to file

an amended complaint, it contemplated further proceedings in this court. See Aluminum
Co. of America v. Beazer East, Inc., 124 F.3d 551, 557 (3d Cir. 1997); M.K. v. Tenet, 196
F. Supp. 2d 8, 12 (D. D.C. 2001). It was therefore interlocutory. A court may revise an
interlocutory order “when consonant with justice to do so.” United States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d

600, 605 (3d Cir. 1973); In re Anthanassious, 418 F. App’x 91, 95 (3d Cir.
2011)(nonprecedential)(quoting Jerry). More specifically, a trial court may revise an
interlocutory order if that order “might lead to an unjust result.” Anthanassious, 418 F.
App’x at 95 (quoted case omitted).

III.

Discussion
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration presents us with no arguments from

which we can conclude that our order should be changed. Plaintiff attacks our rulings that
his amended complaint, naming new defendants, was filed outside the two-year statute of
limitations and did not satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C). (Doc. 44, Br.
in Supp. Mot. for Reconsideration). Plaintiff concedes the untimeliness of his proposed
amended complaint, but argues we erred in finding any “new defendants” were named in
that pleading.1 (Id.) He claims he “is not trying to bring in a new defendant” and that all
defendants named were also named in his original complaint. A review of the original
Complaint shows this argument is meritless. The only individual named in the original
complaint is “Unit Manager Thomas Williams,” and his name only appears in the caption of
the Complaint. (Doc. 1, ECF p. 1). Moreover, Pearson’s claim against Williams and Aikey
are related to their initiation of the removal of his Z code status for retaliatory reasons.
Although he alleges the other supervisory defendants voted to withdraw his Z Code status
while they were aware of his claims of Williams’ and Aikey’s retaliatory motives, he failed to

1

To the extent Pearson alleges the defendants committed fraud by presenting such an
argument. Pearson’s claim will be denied for the reasons set forth below.

-2-

allege in his amended complaint that the proposed supervisory defendants’ action of
revoking his Z code was similarly motivated. Accordingly, Pearson’s motion for
reconsideration will be denied.
As Pearson’s second proposed amended complaint (Doc. 45) does not
comply with this court’s previous order which instructed Pearson to limit the pleading to his
First Amendment retaliation claim, it will be stricken from the record. Pearson will be
granted twenty-one days to file an amended complaint that adheres to the March 11, 2015,
order. Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) due to
Pearson’s failure to follow this court’s instructions in filing his amended complaint will be
denied.
An appropriate order follows.
/s/ William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge

Date: September 1, 2015

-3-