Skirp v. Butler
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM Consequently, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a need to reconsider the May 23, 2016 Memorandum and Order. That Order is not troubled by manifest errors of law or fact and Plaintiff has not presented anythingnew, which if previously presented, might have affected the decision. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration will be denied. An appropriate Order shall issue.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 12/19/16. (jfg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSEPH SKRIP,
Plaintiff
Civil No. 3:15-cv-2408
(Judge Mariani)
v.
EDWARD BUTLER,
Defendant
MEMORANDUM
I.
Background
Plaintiff, Joseph Skrip, an inmate currently confined at the State Correctional
Institution, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Camp Hill"), initiated the instant civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). The named Defendant is Edward Butler,
identified as a kitchen staff employee at SCI-Camp Hill. (Doc. 1, at 2). Previously by
Memorandum and Order dated May 23,2016, the Court dismissed Defendant Butler from
this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), dismissed the complaint
without prejudice, and closed the case. (Docs. 24, 25).
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (Doc. 26) of this
Court's May 23, 2016 Order. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for
reconsideration will be denied.
II.
Motion for Reconsideration Standard of Review
I
!
A motion for reconsideration is adevice of limited utility. It may be used only to seek
i
I
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). 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 Cafe V. Quineros, 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."
Rohrbach
V.
AT &TNassau 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
2
granted sparingly." Continental Casualty Co. v. Diversified Indus. Inc., 884 F. Supp. 937,
943 (E.D. Pa. 1995).
III.
Discussion
In the instant motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that he provided the Court
with "the only address of the Defendant." (Doc. 26). The following procedural history
reveals that the Defendant was never properly served, and Plaintiff fails demonstrate any
grounds warranting reconsideration of this Court's May 23, 2016 Memorandum and Order.
By Order dated December 22, 2015, Plaintiff was permitted to proceed in forma
pauperis and process was issued. (Docs. 7, 9). Plaintiff was forewarned that, "[i]f service is
~
I
t
unable to be completed due to Plaintiffs failure to properly name the Defendant, or provide
t
~
an accurate mailing address for the Defendant, he will be required to correct this deficiency.
If Plaintiff fails to comply, his claims against the Defendant may be dismissed pursuant to
I
I
r
!
!
f
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)." (Doc. 7,
~
5). Defendant was unable to be served.
Therefore, on May 2, 2016, an Order was issued directing Plaintiff to provide the Court with
the correct address for Defendant. (Doc. 20). Plaintiff was again warned that if service was
unable to be completed due to Plaintiffs failure to provide an accurate address for
Defendant, his claims against the Defendant may be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(m). (Doc. 20). Plaintiff nevertheless failed to provide an accurate
address for Defendant Butler. Defendant Butler was never properly served in this case, nor
!
I
I
I
I
I
t
f
!
3
~
t
I
t
!
1
I
!
t
has an attorney entered an appearance on his behalf. Accordingly, this non-served
Defendant was dismissed from this case pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, as he was not served within 90 days of the date on which he was named as a
Defendant in this case. (Docs. 24, 25); FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m).
I
f
I
I
I
!
r
After determining that the Defendant should be dismissed from this action, the Court
nevertheless addressed the merits of the complaint and determined that it failed to state a
I
r
f
plausible claim for relief. The Court noted that Plaintiffs claims are based solely on the
I
alleged verbal abuse and sexually charged comments by Defendant Butler. (Doc. 1, at 3;
!
i
I
Doc. 24, at 5). Notably, general verbal harassment and antagonizing have been found to
I
not constitute an actionable adverse action. See Marlen v. Hunt, 479 F. App'x 436 (3d Cir.
f
2012); Frazier v. Daniels, No. 09-2316, 2010 WL 2040763, at * 11 (E.D. Pa. May 20, 2010);
Burgos v. Canino, 641 F. Supp.2d 443, 456 (E.D. Pa. 2009).
It was further observed that Plaintiff sought "compensatory damages for the stress
and emotional anguish" he suffered as a result of the alleged verbal abuse. (Doc. 1, at 3;
Doc. 24, at 5). The Court determined that, absent an allegation of physical injury, Plaintiff
cannot obtain compensatory damages. (Doc. 24, at 5) (citing Allah v. AI-Hafeez, 226 F.3d
247,251 (3d Cir. 2000) (concluding that mental and emotional distress cannot support a
claim for compensatory damages)). Section 1997e(e) provides: "No Federal civil action
may be brought by a prisoner confined in ajail, prison, or other correctional facility, for
4
i
t
I
I
I
I
!
I
t
!
1
mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical
I
i
injury." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e); see Martinez v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
I
claim for compensatory damages be granted because he did not allege any physical injury
I
l
attributable to emotional distress from the defendants' actions), adopted by, 2012 U.S. Dist.
t
129809,29-30 (M.D. Pa. 2012) (recommending that the motion to dismiss the prisoner's
LEXIS 129815 (M.D. Pa. 2012) (citing Mitchell v. Hom, 318 F.3d 523, 533 (3d Cir. 2003)).
I
I
I
t
U[T]he law is clear that an inmate cannot recover for emotional injury if no physical harm is
i
stated." (Doc. 24, at 5) (citing Morales v. Beard, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78308, *19 n.9
r
(M.D. Pa. 2011), adopted by, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78303 (M.D. Pa. 2011)).
In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the May 23,2016 Memorandum
t
~
l
i
t
dismissing the complaint is not troubled by manifest errors of law or fact.
[
IV.
Conclusion
I
In the motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff fails to advance an intervening change in
f
controlling law, to present newly found evidence, or to establish that a clear error of law or
fact exists. Nor does he establish that the Court came to its conclusions by way of some
I
gross misunderstanding of the facts or law of this case. Consequently, Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate a need to reconsider the May 23, 2016 Memorandum and Order. That Order
is not troubled by manifest errors of law or fact and Plaintiff has not presented anything
new, which if previously presented, might have affected the decision. Accordingly, the
I
,
I
!
5
f
I
f
I
motion for reconsideration will be denied.
An appropriate Order shall issue.
Date: December
/4 ~2016
t
6
I
I
I
[
\
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?