Banks v. United States District Courts et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying pltf's motion for reconsideration 6 . (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 1/30/14. (ki)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FREDERICK BANKS, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-3044 (Chief Judge Conner) ORDER AND NOW, this 30th day of January, 2014, upon consideration of the pro se plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 6) for reconsideration, and it appearing that plaintiff fails to demonstrate reliance on one of three major grounds needed for a proper motion for reconsideration, North River Ins. Co. v. Cigna Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995) (stating three major grounds include “(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence [not available previously]; [or], (3) the need to correct clear error [of law] or prevent manifest injustice.” ), but, instead, simply disagrees with the court’s decision, see Waye v. First Citizen’s Nat’l Bank, 846 F. Supp. 310, 314 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 1994) (finding that “[a] motion for reconsideration is not to be used to reargue matters already argued and disposed of.”), aff’d, 31 F.3d 1174 (3d Cir. 1994); also Database America, Inc. v. Bellsouth Adver. & Publ’g Corp., 825 F. Supp. 1216, 1220 (D.N.J. June 15, 1993) (citations omitted) (holding “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and ‘recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.’”), it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 6) is summarily DENIED. /S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania

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?