DiPietro v. The Department of Corrections and Its Employees Listed Herein et al

Filing 127

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)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA NICODEMO DIPIETRO, Plaintiff vs. THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & ITS EMPLOYEES LISTED HEREIN, et al., Defendants : : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:CV-15-1137 (Judge Caldwell) MEMORANDUM I. Introduction 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. II. 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 United States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d 600, 605 (3d Cir. 1973); In re Anthanassious, 418 F. App’x. 91, 95 (3d Cir. 2011) (nonprecedential) (quoting Jerry); see also Fed.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 case omitted). III. Discussion 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 -2- 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 -3-

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?