Brown v. Doe et al

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry). Signed by Honorable Edwin M. Kosik on 11/10/2016. (emksec, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RAYMOND BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JANE DOE, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 3:16-CV-1031
(Judge Kosik)

MEMORANDUM
I.

Background
Raymond Brown, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution (“SCI”) at

Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, filed the above consolidated civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the complaint, he alleges that Defendants were and continue to
be deliberately indifferent to his health by subjecting him to tobacco smoke.
Currently proceeding as defendants in this action are Superintendent Tice, Connie
Green, C.A. Manager Ralston and Dorina Varner. Service of the complaint has been
directed on said individuals, and on October 12, 2016, waivers were submitted by all
four (4) defendants. On November 7, 2016, Defendants moved for an enlargement of
time until December 7, 2016, within which to file a responsive pleading. Currently
pending is Plaintiff’s motion seeking reconsideration of this court’s Memorandum

and Order of October 25, 2016 denying him counsel.1 (Docs. 27, 28.)
II.

Legal Standard for Motion for Reconsideration
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration “is to correct manifest errors of

law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Kabacinski v. Bostrom Seating,
Inc., 98 F. App’x 78, 81 (3d Cir. 2004)(quoting Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d
906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985)). Because “federal courts have a strong interest in the finality
of judgments,” United States v. Hoey, No. 09-200, 2011 WL 748152, at *2 (W.D. Pa.
Feb. 15, 2011)(citation omitted), the standard that must be met to prevail on a motion
for reconsideration is high, see Berry v. Jacobs IMC, LLC, 99 F. App’x 405, 410 (3d
Cir. 2004).
The court may grant a motion for reconsideration if the moving party shows:
(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence
which was not available when the court issued its order; or (3) the need to correct a
clear error of law or fact or to prevent a manifest injustice. United States v. Banks,
Crim. No. 03-245, 2008 WL 5429620, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 31, 2008)(citing Max’s
Seafood Café by Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)).
Motions for reconsideration are not a tool to re-litigate and reargue issues which have
In the Memorandum and Order, the court also deemed a motion for
preliminary injunction filed by Plaintiff moot due to his failure to file a supporting
brief. See M.D. Pa. 7.5.
1

2

already been considered and disposed of by the court, see Hoey, 2011 WL 748152, at
*2 (citation omitted), or for addressing arguments that a party should have raised
earlier, see United States v. Dupree, 617 F.3d 724, 732-33 (3d Cir. 2010)(quotations
omitted). Rather, such a motion is appropriate only where the court misunderstood a
party or where there has been a significant change in law or facts since the court
originally ruled on that issue. Hoey, 2011 WL 748152, at *2. The mere
dissatisfaction with the court’s ruling is not a proper basis for reconsideration.
Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. PNC Bank, N.A., 73 F.Supp.2d 485, 487 (E.D. Pa. 1999).
III.

Discussion
None of the reasons which support reconsideration exist in the instant case.

Plaintiff disagrees with the court’s decision to deny, without prejudice, his motion for
counsel. He basically rehashes his arguments in support of counsel, arguments that
have already been addressed by the court. While Plaintiff disagrees that this case is
still in the early stages, he is mistaken. Defendants have waived service of the
amended complaint, but have very recently moved to enlarge the time within which
they must respond thereto. As such, no response has yet been filed. While Plaintiff
devotes much time to arguing that he is unable to produce a legal brief in opposition
to the summary judgment motion that Defendants will file, any such argument is
clearly premature at this time. Moreover, any discovery would be permitted prior

3

thereto. There is no reason why Plaintiff could not serve discovery requests on the
defendants at the appropriate time. Based on his motion for reconsideration, he
knows what discovery information he would need. As such, and for the reasons
previously given by the court in the Memorandum of October 25, 2016, the instant
motion for reconsideration is denied. An appropriate order follows.

4