Simpson v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. et al
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 19 Simpson's MOTION for Reconsideration re 16 Order Transferring Case is denied. Signed by Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann on 5/6/2022. (lg)
Case 4:21-cv-01127-MWB-MP Document 21 Filed 05/06/22 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHN SIMPSON,
No. 4:21-CV-01127
Plaintiff,
(Chief Judge Brann)
v.
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MAY 6, 2022
On October 28, 2021, this Court dismissed institutional defendant Luzerne
County Correctional Facility and transferred the remaining claims in Plaintiff John
Simpson’s pro se amended complaint1 to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.2 The Court transferred the case for “the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice” pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) because the only remaining Section 1983 defendant—Barry
Smith—is the superintendent of State Correctional Institution Houtzdale (SCI
Houtzdale), which is located in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, and thus situated
in the Western District of Pennsylvania.3
1
2
3
Doc. 14.
See generally Doc. 16.
See id. at 2 & n.6. The amended complaint also contains pendent state-law claims against
Tyler Memorial Hospital and W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.; however, only Tyler Memorial
Hospital is situated in the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the claims against that facility
do not implicate federal law.
Case 4:21-cv-01127-MWB-MP Document 21 Filed 05/06/22 Page 2 of 4
Simpson appealed that decision on November 12, 2021.4 He subsequently
moved for reconsideration in this Court.5 Simpson’s motion for reconsideration is
dated November 29, 2021, and was received by the Court and docketed on
December 7, 2021.6 The Court, however, was unable to entertain Simpson’s
motion, as he had already filed a notice of appeal and divested this Court of
jurisdiction.7
On March 2, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
dismissed Simpson’s appeal for failure to pay the filing fee or to file an application
to proceed in forma pauperis.8 That order, however, was not docketed by the
Third Circuit Clerk of Court in the instant case until May 5, 2022.9 Once again
having jurisdiction, the Court now turns to Simpson’s motion for reconsideration.
In his motion, Simpson contends that this Court’s October 28, 2021 Order
was erroneous because his amended complaint “specifically named ten employees
of the Luzerne County Prison in their individual and official capacities, corrected
the name of the defendant hospital and named three of its employees in their
4
5
6
7
8
9
Doc. 17.
Doc. 19.
See id. at 1, 4, 6.
See Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l Ass’n Local 19 v. Herre Bros., 198 F.3d 391 (3d Cir. 1999) (“It
is well established that ‘[t]he filing of a notice of appeal . . . confers jurisdiction on the court
of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in
the appeal.’” (alterations in original) (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.,
459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982))).
Doc. 20.
See id.
2
Case 4:21-cv-01127-MWB-MP Document 21 Filed 05/06/22 Page 3 of 4
individual and official capacities, and added the Secretary of the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections and Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf as defendants to
this cause of action[.]”10
The Court will deny Simpson’s motion for reconsideration for two reasons.
First, the motion was filed too late. Under Local Rule 7.10, any motion for
reconsideration (other than one to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59) must be filed within 14 days “after the entry of the order
concerned.”11 Even applying the prisoner mailbox rule12—and assuming that
Simpson not only signed his motion on November 29 but also deposited it in the
prison mail system that same day—his motion for reconsideration of this Court’s
October 28 Order is still more than two weeks too late.
Second, Simpson’s amended complaint does not contain the factual matter
that he maintains it does.13 The amended complaint identifies four defendants and
only four defendants: W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Tyler Memorial Hospital,
“Luzerne County Prison,” and Barry Smith.14 There is only one passing reference
that “Luzerne County Prison and its medical staff” caused some of Simpson’s
alleged medical injuries,15 but this single fleeting allusion is entirely insufficient to
10
11
12
13
14
15
Doc. 19 at 2-3.
LOCAL RULE OF COURT 7.10.
See Pabon v. Mahanoy, 654 F.3d 385, 391 n.8 (3d Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
The Court has reviewed the scanned electronic version of Simpson’s amended complaint, Doc.
14, as well as the hard copy Simpson mailed to the Court.
See Doc. 14 at 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 11.
See id. at 5 (emphasis added).
3
Case 4:21-cv-01127-MWB-MP Document 21 Filed 05/06/22 Page 4 of 4
name additional defendants for a Section 1983 lawsuit. That is particularly true
when, at all other places in his amended complaint that mention “Luzerne County
Prison” (including, but not limited to, the caption, the list of defendants, and the
“Relief” section), only the facility—not any medical staff member—is identified.16
It is quite possible that Simpson errantly omitted a page when submitting his
amended complaint to this Court. The Court observes that “Page 2 of 11” is
missing from the form civil rights “amended” complaint that Simpson filed.17
Should Simpson wish to amend his pleadings a second time to add additional
defendants, he must obtain written consent from the opposing parties or seek leave
of court from the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.18
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Simpson’s
motion for reconsideration, Doc. 19, is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge
16
17
18
See id. at 1, 2, 8.
See id. at 1-2.
FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2).
4
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?