DeLeo v. Spaulding

Filing 10

ORDER denying DeLeo's motion for reconsideration 7 . (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 12/18/15. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RALPH FRANCIS DELEO,
Plaintiff
v.
S. SPAULDING, WARDEN,
Respondent

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-2321
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 18th day of December, 2015, upon consideration of the
motion (Doc. 7) for reconsideration filed pro se by plaintiff Ralph Francis DeLeo
(“DeLeo”), seeking reconsideration of the court’s order (Doc. 5) dated December 9,
2015, denying DeLeo’s motion (Doc. 1) for emergency injunctive relief, wherein the
court concluded that DeLeo’s prison medical records contradict the urgency he
assigned to his medical condition, specifically, an aortic aneurysm, and instead
reflect that the medical staff at the Federal Correctional Complex at Allenwood,
Pennsylvania, are both aware of and regularly monitoring his medical condition,
and the court emphasizing that the purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to
present newly discovered evidence or to correct manifest errors of law or fact, see
Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677-78 (3d Cir. 1999); Harsco Corp. v.
Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), and noting that the court possesses an
inherent power to reconsider its orders “when it is consonant with justice to do so,”
United States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d 600, 605 (3d Cir. 1973); see also Alea N. Am. Ins. Co.
v. Salem Masonry Co., 301 F. App’x 119, 121 (3d Cir. 2008), but that such relief is to

be granted “sparingly,” Montanez v. York City, No. 1:12-CV-1530, 2014 WL 3534567,
at *7 (M.D. Pa. July 16, 2014) (quoting Cont’l Casualty Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc.,
884 F. Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995)), and that a party may not invoke a motion for
reconsideration as a means to relitigate matters of disagreement with the court, see
Boretsky v. Governor of N.J., 433 F. App’x 73, 78 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Wilchombe
v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2007)), nor is such a motion “an
opportunity for a party to present previously available evidence or new arguments,”
Federico v. Charterers Mut. Assurance Ass’n Ltd., 158 F. Supp. 2d 565, 577 (E.D. Pa.
2011); see also Harsco Corp., 779 F.2d at 909, and it appearing that DeLeo bases his
instant motion on arguments identical to or expanding on those raised in his initial
request for emergency injunctive relief, and specifically highlights his “history of
hypertensive urgency” as a concern for the court to consider, but the court noting
that it reviewed the entirety of DeLeo’s submitted prison medical records and did
consider his serious but monitored hypertensive condition in ruling on DeLeo’s
initial motion, and the court thus concluding that DeLeo has neither identified nor
substantiated a clear error of law or fact or a manifest injustice in the court’s prior
decision, it is hereby ORDERED that DeLeo’s motion (Doc. 7) for reconsideration is
DENIED.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania