Haar v. Sage et al

Filing 83

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 71 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Jeremy Martin Haar, 80 MOTION to Expedite filed by Jeremy Martin Haar. Signed by Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson on 3/10/2025. (ve)

Case 1:23-cv-00041-JPW-EW

Document 83

Filed 03/10/25

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JEREMY MARTIN HAAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
JESSICA SAGE, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 1:23-CV-00041

Judge Jennifer P. Wilson

MEMORANDUM
Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s
August 22, 2024 memorandum and order dismissing the amended complaint and
closing the case. (Doc. 71.) Additionally, Plaintiff has filed a motion to expedite
his motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 80.) Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the
court’s order–without more–is not an adequate reason to justify a reconsideration
of the order. Therefore, the court will deny Plaintiff’s motions.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
On January 10, 2023, the court received and docketed a complaint filed by
Jeremy Martin Haar (“Plaintiff”). (Doc. 1.) The operative complaint in this matter
is the amended complaint filed on August 31, 2023. (Doc. 45.)
On October 30, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and, in the alternative, for summary judgment. (Doc. 50.) Following
briefing, the court dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim raised pursuant to

1

Case 1:23-cv-00041-JPW-EW

Document 83

Filed 03/10/25

Page 2 of 4

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388, 397 (1971) because it presented a new context, and special factors counseled
against extending the remedies provided in Bivens. (Docs. 68, 69.) The court then
closed the case. (Doc. 69.) On August 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a combination
motion for reconsideration and brief in support. (Doc. 71.) On September 30,
2024, Defendants filed a brief in opposition. (Doc. 77.) On December 17, 2024,
Plaintiff filed a motion to expedite his motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 80.) The
court will now address the pending motions.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration argues that the court erred in finding
that the alleged facts in his complaint present a new context under Ziglar v. Abbasi,
582 U.S. 93, 102 (2020), and presents numerous cases from multiple jurisdictions
in support of his assertion. (Doc. 71.)
A court may alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
See Keifer v. Reinhart Foodservices, LLC., 563 F.App'x 112, 114 (3d Cir. 2014).
“A motion under Rule 59(e) is a ‘device to relitigate the original issue’ decided by
the district court, and used to allege legal error.” United States v. Fiorelli, 337
F.3d 282, 288 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting Smith v. Evans, 853 F.2d 155, 158-159 (3d
Cir. 1988)). A motion to alter or amend “must rely on one of three major grounds:
(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence
2

Case 1:23-cv-00041-JPW-EW

Document 83

Filed 03/10/25

Page 3 of 4

not available previously; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent
manifest injustice.” N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d
1194,1218 (3d Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); see
also, Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d
Cir. 1999). However, “motions for reconsideration should not be used to put
forward arguments which the movant . . . could have made but neglected to make
before judgment.” United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 677 (E.D. Pa. 2003)
(internal quotation marks and alterations omitted) (quoting Reich v. Compton, 834
F.Supp.2d 753, 755 (E.D. Pa. 1993) rev'd in part and aff'd in part on other
grounds, 57 F.3d 270 (3d Cir. 1995)). Nor should they “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 Court and the litigant.” Donegan v. Livingston, 877
F.Supp.2d 212, 226 (M.D. Pa. 2012) (quoting Ogden v. Keystone Residence, 226
F.Supp.2d 588, 606 (M.D. Pa. 2002)).
Plaintiff’s motion cannot succeed under Rule 59(e). Here, Plaintiff is
attempting to relitigate the issue of whether or not his Eighth Amendment claim
presents a new context under Ziglar. All of the arguments and cases cited by
Plaintiff in the instant motions were available to him at the time of filing his brief
in opposition to the motion to dismiss. (Doc. 71.) In fact, he made this argument

3

Case 1:23-cv-00041-JPW-EW

Document 83

Filed 03/10/25

Page 4 of 4

in his brief in opposition. (See Doc. 60-1, p. 7.)1 Additionally, the court
specifically addresses this argument in its memorandum. (See Doc. 68, pp. 13–15.)
Therefore, under Donegan, the motion for reconsideration merely presents
Plaintiff’s disagreement with the court’s decision and will be denied.
Because Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be denied, his motion to
expedite will be denied as moot.
CONCLUSION
As set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be denied as it
presents nothing more than his disagreement with the court’s August 22, 2024
memorandum and order. An appropriate order follows.
s/Jennifer P. Wilson
JENNIFER P. WILSON
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dated: March 10, 2025

1

For ease of reference, the court uses the page numbers from the CM/ECF header.
4