Little v. Ebbert
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry).Signed by Honorable Yvette Kane on 12/19/16. (sc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL R. LITTLE
Plaintiffs
vs.
DAVID J. EBBERT, et al.,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
No. 1:16-CV-01030
(Judge Kane)
MEMORANDUM
Background
On May 31, 2016, Plaintiffs Michael R. Little, an inmate
confined at the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg,
Pennsylvania, filed a complaint against the Federal Bureau of
Prisons (“BOP”), the United States, 36 individuals employed by the
BOP and ten “John Does.”
(Doc. No. 1.)
The complaint was a
handwritten, single-spaced, rambling and disjointed document
consisting of twenty-six pages. (Id.)
Plaintiff entitled the
complaint “First Amendment Complaint for Redress of Grievances.”
(Id.)
Plaintiff appeared to raised multiple claims, including
First Amendment retaliation and Eighth Amendment failure to
protect claims.
He requests $1 million in punitive damages and
$50,000 in compensatory damages from each defendant.
Plaintiff
did not, in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act of
1995 (“PLRA”), pay the filing fee, or a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis and the authorization to have funds deducted from his
prison trust fund account to pay the filing fee in installments.1
On June 2, 2016, an Administrative Order was issued
directing Plaintiff within 30 days to pay the filing fee or file a
completed and signed application to proceed in forma pauperis and
an authorization form. (Doc. No. 3.) Along with that
Administrative Order Plaintiff was sent the proper forms to
complete.
Plaintiff failed to comply with that Administrative
Order. Instead on July 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document
entitled “Notice of Error” in which he states he “disavows”
28
U.S.C. §1331 and the PLRA filing fee requirements set forth at 28
U.S.C. § 1915, that is, to pay the filing fee up front or in
installments.
Because it was beyond question that Plaintiff was
subject to the filing fee provisions of the PLRA, Plaintiff was
directed on July 14, 2016, to comply with the Administrative Order
within 20 days or his complaint would be dismissed.
See Redmond
v. Gill, 352 F.3d 801, 803-804 (3d Cir. 2003).2
1. The PLRA, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (April 26,
1996) imposes obligations on prisoners who file suit in federal
court and wish to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §
1915, e.g., the full filing fee ultimately must be paid (at least
in a non-habeas suit).
2. See also Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S.Ct. 627, 629-633 (2016);
Hairston v. Gronolsky, 347 F. App’x 737, 738-739 (3d Cir. Oct. 6,
2009); Drayer v. Attorney General of State of Delaware, 81 F.
App’x 429, 430-431 (3d Cir. 2003); Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d
1483, 1487-1489 (11th Cir. 1997)(PLRA filing fee requirement does
not violate the equal protection clause); Murray v. Dosal, 150
F.3d 814, 818 (5th Cir. 1998)(“The [PLRA’s] fee requirements
provide economic incentives that require prisoners to ‘stop and
(continued...)
2
On August 12, 2016, when Plaintiff again failed to
comply his complaint was dismissed without prejudice and the Clerk
directed to close the case.
On August 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for
reconsideration and a brief in support.
For the reason set forth
below, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be denied.
Discussion
A motion for reconsideration is a device of limited
utility.
It may be used only to seek remediation for manifest
errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence
which, if discovered previously, might have affected the court's
decision.
Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906 (3d Cir. 1985),
cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 (1986); Massachusetts Mutual Life
Insurance Co. v. Maitland, Civil No. 87-0827 (M.D. Pa. March 1,
1989) (Rambo, J.).
Accordingly, a party seeking reconsideration
must demonstrate at least one of the following grounds prior to
the court altering, or amending, a standing judgment: (1) an
intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of
new evidence that was not available when the court granted the
motion; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or
to prevent manifest injustice.
Max's Seafood Café v. Quineros,
2. (...continued)
think’ before filing suit.”).
The Eleventh Circuit indicated
that deterring frivolous lawsuits was a legitimate concern of
Congress and the filing fee requirement was rationally related to
that concern because inmates often have free time on their hands
that other litigants do not possess. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112
F.3d at 1489.
3
176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)(citing North River Ins. Co. v.
CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)).
A
motion for reconsideration is appropriate in instances where the
court has “...misunderstood a party, or has made a decision
outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the
parties, or has made an error not of reasoning, but of
apprehension.”
See Rohrbach v. AT & T Nassau Metals Corp., 902 F.
Supp. 523, 527 (M.D. Pa. 1995), vacated in part on other grounds
on reconsideration, 915 F. Supp. 712 (M.D. Pa. 1996), quoting
Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99,
101 (E.D. Va. 1983).
It may not be used as a means to reargue
unsuccessful theories, or argue new facts or issues that were not
presented to the court in the context of the matter previously
decided.
2001).
Drysdale v. Woerth, 153 F. Supp. 2d 678, 682 (E.D. Pa.
“Because federal courts have a strong interest in the
finality of judgments, motions for reconsideration should be
granted sparingly.”
Continental Casualty Co. v. Diversified
Indus. Inc., 884 F.Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995).
Plaintiff attached to his brief what purports to be the
proper IFP and authorization forms. However, a review of the forms
submitted reveals they are not the forms used by this district.
Plaintiff clearly failed to comply with the Administrative Order
in a timely manner and he did not use the forms which were sent to
him.
Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice and he
4
has the option of filing a new complaint accompanied by the proper
forms.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration fails to
demonstrate that there has been an intervening change in the law,
that there is newly discovered evidence, or that there has been a
clear error of law or manifest injustice committed.
Court finds that its order August 12, 2016,
Thus, the
is not defective
because of manifest errors of law or fact and Plaintiff has not
presented anything new, which if previously presented, might have
affected the court’s decision. Consequently, the motion for
reconsideration will be denied.
An appropriate order will be entered.
5
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?