Nelson v. Haste

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM re pltf's MOTION for Reconsideration 41 (Order to follow as separate docket entry) Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 01/26/15. (ma)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PURNELL R. NELSON,
Plaintiff
vs.
DOMINICK DeROSE and D. YOUNG,
Defendants

:
:
:
: CIVIL No. 1:14-CV-1539
:
:
:

MEMORANDUM
The pro se plaintiff, Purnell R. Nelson, has filed a motion for reconsideration
of our order dismissing his Eighth Amendment claim. Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. He brought three claims against nine employees of the Dauphin
County Prison. Plaintiff’s first claim alleged the medical staff at the prison violated the
Eighth Amendment by refusing to provide him with a prosthetic arm. Plaintiff’s second
claim alleged that Defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his disability.
Plaintiff’s third claim alleged his due process rights were violated when prison officials
discarded the grievances that he had filed.
We conducted an initial review of Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915. (Doc. 16). We dismissed all named defendants except Defendants DeRose and
Young, and as to the latter two defendants, allowed the Eighth Amendment claim to
proceed. (Id.). We also dismissed the disability-discrimination claim and the due process
claim, finding that Plaintiff had failed to allege sufficient facts pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8
to support those claims. We gave Plaintiff twenty-one days to amend those claims, as
well as add defendants to the Eighth Amendment claim if Plaintiff could allege their

personal involvement. Plaintiff did not respond to the order. As a result, the only claim
left was the Eighth Amendment claim against DeRose and Young for refusing to provide
Plaintiff with a prosthetic arm.
On that claim, Plaintiff sought only declaratory and injunctive relief.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiff was no longer
incarcerated at Dauphin County Prison and that therefore the relief he sought was moot.
(Doc. 36). We granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss, finding that we no longer had
jurisdiction because there was no longer a case or controversy. (Doc. 40, ECF p. 3).
Plaintiff then filed his motion for reconsideration. (Doc 41). Plaintiff argues
that his Eighth Amendment claim is not moot because he plans on being returned to
Dauphin County Prison after he is granted a new trial on the appeal of his criminal case.
(Id., ECF pp. 1-2). He also seems to be arguing that his other two claims were properly
pled. (Id., ECF p. 3).
A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is used “‘to correct manifest
errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.’” Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591
F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010)(quoting Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou–Ann, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)). “A proper Rule 59(e) motion therefore
must rely on one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to
prevent manifest injustice.” Id. It cannot be used simply to reargue issues that the court
has already considered and disposed of. Blanchard v. Gallick, No. 09–1875, 2011 WL

2

1878226, at *1 (M.D. Pa. May 17, 2011) (Caldwell, J.)(citing Ogden v. Keystone
Residence, 226 F. Supp. 2d 588, 606 (M.D. Pa. 2002)). Nor can it “be used as a means
to argue new facts or issues that were not presented to the court in the context of the
matter previously decided.” Worbetz v. Ward North America, Inc., 54 F. App’x 526, 533
(3d Cir. 2002)(nonprecedential).
We will deny the motion. First, Plaintiff does not cite any intervening
change in the controlling law. Second, Plaintiff has put forth no new evidence that was
previously unavailable when the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. A motion
for reconsideration cannot be used to argue new facts or issues. Finally, Plaintiff does
not argue clear error of law or fact; he merely conclusorily argues that his disabilitydiscrimination claim and due process claim should not have been dismissed.
Also, Plaintiff is unable to show that his case is an exception to the
mootness principle. It is a matter of speculation that Plaintiff will again find himself in the
Dauphin County Prison. Mere conjecture is not enough to defeat mootness. See
Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 4 F.3d 195, 206-07 (3d Cir. 1993).
We will issue an appropriate order.

/s/William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge

Date: January 26, 2014

3