DiPietro v. The Department of Corrections and Its Employees Listed Herein et al
MEMORANDUM re pltf's MOTION for Reconsideration 122 (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 11/16/17. (ma)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS & ITS EMPLOYEES
LISTED HEREIN, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:CV-15-1137
Presently before the court is Plaintiff DiPietro’s motion for
reconsideration (ECF No. 122) of our October 16, 2017 Order addressing
Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 121). DiPietro
challenges our decision to dismiss Secretary Wetzel, Executive Deputy Secretary
Moore Smeal, and Director Barnacle of the Office of Special Investigation and
Intelligence. For the reasons that follow, DiPietro’s motion will be denied.
Standard of Review
The usual vehicle for a motion for reconsideration of a final judgment
or order is either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). 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 party moving to alter or amend a judgment
pursuant to Rule 59(e) faces a difficult burden. The applicant for reconsideration
must show “at least one of the following 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.” Schumann v. Astrazeneca
Pharm., L.P., 769 F.3d 837, 848 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Max’s Seafood Café, 176
F.3d at 677). However, neither Rule 59(e) or 60(b) applies where a party seeks
reconsideration of “a district court order that resolves fewer than all the claims of all
the parties in a single action because such orders do not constitute ‘final decisions’
per 28 U.S.C. § 1291.” Hill v. City of Scranton, 411 F.3d 118, 124 (3d Cir. 2005).
Such orders are normally interlocutory. As such, a court may revise them “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1973); In re Anthanassious, 418 F. App’x. 91, 95 (3d Cir. 2011) (nonprecedential)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); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). More specifically, a trial court may
revise an interlocutory order if that order “might lead to an unjust result.” Id. (quoted
Initially, we note that DiPietro did not file a brief in support of his motion
for reconsideration as required by M.D. Local Rule 7.5. Accordingly, the motion
could be deemed withdrawn. Additionally, as DiPietro’s motion identifies no newly
discovered evidence or manifest errors of facts within our non-dispositive order, and
simply rehashes arguments presented in his brief in opposition to Defendants’
motion for judgment on the pleadings, his motion for reconsideration will be denied.
/s/William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge
Date: November 16, 2017
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?