West v. Tafelski et al
ORDER denying 12 Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Edwin M. Kosik on 1/6/2017 (emksec, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RONALD BLUE WEST,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CIVIL NO. 3:16-CV-2460
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Plaintiff, Ronald Blue West, commenced this civil rights action pursuant to the
Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346. In this action he seeks injunctive and
monetary relief for violations of his constitutional rights in conjunction with actions
of employees at the Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) at Allenwood,
Pennsylvania, who are alleged to have negligently put his life in danger. Plaintiff is
no longer confined there, and is currently housed at the FCI at Estill, South Carolina.
On December 22, 2016, the United States of America was substituted as the sole
Defendant and service of the complaint was directed. (Docs. 8, 9.) In addition,
Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel was denied. He currently seeks
reconsideration of the denial of his counsel motion. (Doc. 12.) His motion for
reconsideration will be denied for the following reasons.
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)). The standard was properly set forth by the court in the Memorandum
of December 22, 2016, and will not be repeated herein. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff reasserts
the same arguments in support of his request for counsel, and these arguments have
been rejected. Moreover, Plaintiff attempts to argue the merits of his case in his
motion for reconsideration in support of the appointment of counsel. He also claims
that counsel should be appointed “to level the playing field.” (Doc. 12 at 3.)
None of the reasons given by Plaintiff warrant reconsideration by the court.
The court may grant a motion for reconsideration only 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)).
Plaintiff demonstrates none of these reasons and merely is dissatisfied with the
decision to deny counsel without prejudice at this time. There is no question that he
is more than able to litigate this matter on his own at this juncture. As such, and for
the reasons previously given by the court, the pending motion for reconsideration will
ACCORDINGLY, THIS 6th DAY OF JANUARY, 2017, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 12) is DENIED.
s/Edwin M. Kosik
EDWIN M. KOSIK
United States District Judge
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?