Sutton v. Cerullo et al

Filing 122

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable Edwin M. Kosik on 3/31/15. (ts)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KELVIN SUTTON,
Plaintiff
v.
MARVA CERULLO, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
: CIVIL NO. 3:CV-10-1899
:
: (Judge Kosik)
:
:

MEMORANDUM
Presently pending in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
is a motion filed by Plaintiff, Kelvin Sutton, to alter or amend this court’s decision of
February 19, 2015 (Doc. 118). For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.
I.

Background
The only remaining Defendant in this action is Nelson Iannuzzi, CRNP, at the

time an employee of Prison Health Services, Inc. Plaintiff contends that Defendant
was deliberately indifferent to his “plantar fasciitis” foot condition. On February 19,
2015, the court issued a Memorandum addressing motions to compel discovery and to
enlarge the discovery period that had been filed by Plaintiff. Both motions were
denied, and the parties were directed to file any dispositive motions within twenty

(20) days.1 (Doc. 114.)
In denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel, the court found that the responses
provided to discovery requests by Defendant were either adequate and responsive, or
that the objections raised were valid. Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of this
holding. In doing so, he argues that he has been denied the ability to participate in
the discovery process and wants to extend discovery to request Interrogatories from
Defendant and submit a shorter Request for the Production of Documents. (Doc.
118.)
II.

Discussion
A motion for reconsideration is a device of limited utility. Its purpose is to

correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.
Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). 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 entered judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of
law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176
F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)(citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co.,

A motion to enlarge this deadline filed by Defendant was granted on March 3,
2015. (Doc. 117.) Any dispositive motions are now due on or before April 10, 2015.
1

2

52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). A motion for reconsideration is appropriate in
instances where the court has “patently 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.” 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. Drysdale v.
Woerth, 153 F. Supp.2d 678, 682 (E.D. Pa. 2001). “Because federal courts have a
strong interest in the finality of judgments, motions for reconsideration should be
granted sparingly.” Continental Cas. Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc., 884 F. Supp.
937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995).
In the instant case, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate any of the applicable grounds
for reconsideration. In his motion, he has not set forth an intervening change in law,
presented new evidence, or argued the existence of a clear error of law or fact.
Rather, he merely argues that he has not been afforded the opportunity to conduct
discovery in this action. This argument is clearly undermined by the record. He has
submitted discovery requests to Defendant and is dissatisfied with the responses he
received. His challenges to those responses were thoroughly addressed in the

3

Memorandum of February 19, 2015. Plaintiff fails to advance any proper grounds
for altering the court’s decision. As such, his motion for reconsideration will be
denied. In addition, the Clerk of Court will be directed to strike as premature and
return to Plaintiff the “Witness List “ for use at trial filed on March 27, 2015 (Doc.
120). An appropriate order follows.

4