Anderson v. Bickell et al

Filing 62

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 58 MOTION for Extension of Time to Amend 1 Complaint filed by Rodney Anderson Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 7/11/16. (jam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RODNEY ANDERSON,
Plaintiff
v.
T. BICKELL, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 3:CV-14-1792
(Judge Caputo)

MEMORANDUM
I.

Introduction
Presently before the Court is Mr. Anderson’s second motion for enlargement of

time to file an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 58.) Based on its content, the Court will also
construe the motion as one for reconsideration of the Court’s June 10, 2016 order
dismissing the case due to Mr. Anderson’s failure to file an amended complaint.
For the reasons that follow, the case will be reinstated and Mr. Anderson will be
granted an opportunity to file his amended complaint.

II.

Background
By order dated March 30, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied the

Defendants’ motions to dismiss the Complaint. See Docs. 51 and 52. Mr. Anderson
was granted twenty-one days to file an amended complaint to correct the deficiencies
in his original pro se complaint. (Doc. 51). Mr. Anderson was warned that his action
would be dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint. (Id.) On April 28, 2016,

the Court granted Mr. Anderson’s request for an enlargement of time to file his
amended complaint. (Doc. 55). On June 10, 2016, after Mr. Anderson failed to file an
amended complaint and did not seek a second enlargement of time within which to do
so, the Court dismissed the action. (Doc. 56.)

III.

Standard of Review
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) provides that “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must

be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A
motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is used “‘to correct manifest errors of law
or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.’” Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666,
669 (3d Cir. 2010)(quoting Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176
F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)). A party moving to alter or amend a judgment pursuant
to Rule 59(e) faces a difficult burden. The applicant for reconsideration must show “at
least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to
prevent manifest injustice.” Schumann v. Astrazeneca Pharm., L.P., 769 F.3d 837, 848
(3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Max’s Seafood Café, 176 F.3d at 677).

IV.

Discussion
On June 17, 2016, Mr. Anderson simultaneously filed an “Appeal of Dismissal”

(Doc. 57) and Motion for Enlargement of Time (Doc. 58). In both documents he states

-2-

he placed a second motion for enlargement of time in prison’s outgoing mail on or
about May 20, 2016, the date his amended complaint was due. The Court never
received Mr. Anderson’s request for additional time to file his amended complaint. Mr.
Anderson alleges he is prepared to file his amended complaint but due to prison
officials’ interference with his outgoing legal mail, his action has been dismissed.
Construing Mr. Anderson’s motion for enlargement of time to file his amended
complaint as a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his action for failure to file
an amended complaint, the Court will grant his request based on his assertion that his
“Amended Complaint and additional supplemental Complaint is done and completed.
The plaintiff only needs to copy the exhibits and attach them to the complaints.” (Doc.
57.) Accordingly, the Court will reinstate this action and grant Mr. Anderson thirty days
to file his Amended Complaint.
Mr. Anderson is cautioned that his amended complaint must contain the same
docket number as the instant action and should be labeled “Amended Complaint.” In
addition, the "amended complaint must be complete in all respects. It must be a new
pleading which stands by itself as an adequate complaint without reference to the
complaint already filed." Young v. Keohane, 809 F. Supp. 1185, 1198 (M.D. Pa. 1992).
Mr. Anderson is advised that any amended complaint he may file supersedes the
original complaint and must be “retyped or reprinted so that it will be complete in itself
including exhibits.” M.D. Pa. LR 15.1. His amended complaint may not incorporate by
reference his original complaint. Consequently, all surviving causes of action alleged

-3-

in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended complaint are waived.
Mr. Anderson should consult the Court’s Order of March 30, 2016, granting in part and
denying in part, the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss when drafting his amended
complaint.
An appropriate Order will follow.
/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. RICHARD CAPUTO
United States District Judge
Date: July 11, 2016

-4-