Parks v. Argueta et al
Filing
45
MEMORANDUM re MOTION to Amend/Correct 44 (Order to follow as separate docket entry) Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 2/15/17. (ma)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DARRELL PARKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
S. ARGUETA, et al.,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil No. 1:15-cv-1514
Judge Sylvia H. Rambo
Magistrate Judge Schwab
MEMORANDUM
Before the court is Plaintiff Darrell Parks’ (“Park”) motion to alter or
amend judgment. (Doc. 44.) The motion will be deemed to be a motion for
reconsideration of this court’s memorandum and order of January 18, 2017. (Docs.
41 & 42.)
I.
Background
On August 14, 2016, Parks filed pro se a Bivens action. The case was
referred to a magistrate judge who filed a report and recommendation on
December 5, 2016 recommending that the action be dismissed after careful
analysis of the factors set forth in Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 747 F.2d
863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984). Objections to the report and recommendation were due on
December 19, 2016. As of January 18, 2017, no objections were filed. On January
31, 2017, the memorandum and order of this court (Docs. 41 & 42) were returned
as undeliverable.1 The address was verified, updated, and resent. There is no
indication in the record that the report and recommendation was not deliverable.
On February 9, 2017, Parks filed the instant motion.
In his motion for reconsideration, Parks alleges that this court erred in
dismissing his case pursuant to Rule 41(b) because it failed to consider the Poulis
factors (Doc. 44, p. 2) and because it did not give him an opportunity to explain his
failure to comply with its order before dismissing his case sua sponte (id. at 3).
II.
Legal Standard
Motions for reconsideration serve primarily to correct manifest errors of
law or fact in a prior decision of the court. See United States v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d
282, 288 (3d Cir. 2003). Under Rule 59(e), “a judgment may be altered or
amended if the party seeking reconsideration establishes at least one of the
following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the
motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact
or to prevent manifest injustice.” Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). Motions for reconsideration may also
be appropriate in instances “where, for example, the [c]ourt has patently
1
On August 4, 2015, a standing order (Doc. 5) was issued advising the parties of their briefing
and other responsibilities which including the responsibility to notify the clerk of any changes in
addresses. Parks did not do this.
2
misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues
presented to the [c]ourt by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of
apprehension.” Reaves v. Pa. State Police, Civ. No. 09-cv-2549, 2014 WL 486741,
*3 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2014) (quoting Rohrbach v. AT&T Nassau Metals Corp., 902
F. Supp. 523, 527 (M.D. Pa. 1995)). “A motion for reconsideration is not to be
used as a means to reargue matters already argued and disposed of or as an attempt
to relitigate a point of disagreement between the [c]ourt and the litigant.” Ogden v.
Keystone Residence, 226 F. Supp. 2d 588, 606 (M.D. Pa. 2002). “Likewise,
reconsideration motions may not be used to raise new arguments or present
evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Hill v. Tamac
Corp., Civ. No. 05-cv-1148, 2006 WL 529044, *2 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 3, 2006) (citing
McDowell Oil Serv., Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 817 F. Supp. 538, 541
(M.D. Pa. 1993)).
III.
Discussion
The magistrate judge and this court did address the six factors set forth in
Poulis. (See Doc. 39, pp. 9-12; Doc. 41, pp. 2-4.) However, both the magistrate and
this court also considered the merits of Parks’ case and dismissed the complaint.
The only remaining issue in the case was a deliberate indifference to Parks’
medical needs. The undisputed facts supported the grant of a motion to dismiss and
for summary judgment based on lack of merit.
3
Parks claims that he did not have a sufficient opportunity to explain his
failure to comply with its order. (Order not identified by Parks.)
Throughout this proceeding, Parks has failed to file a brief in opposition
to the motion to dismiss and for summary judgment after being ordered to do so
several times by the magistrate judge and being granted three extensions of time to
do so.
Parks’ complaint was not dismissed sua sponte alone, but after a
thorough discussion of the merits of the case.
The motion for reconsideration will be denied.
s/Sylvia H. Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge
Dated: February 15, 2017
4
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?