HANKINS v. WOLF et al

Filing 178

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 175 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 06/23/16. (mcp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROBERT HANKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
C/O WOLF,
Defendant.

)
)
)
) 1:12-cv-00168
)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is a MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION / OBJECTION
AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT (ECF No. 175) filed by Pro Se Plaintiff Robert Hankins. Defendant
C/O Wolf has filed a response in opposition. Accordingly, the motion is ripe for disposition.
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to “correct manifest errors of law or fact
or to present newly discovered evidence.”

Max’s Seafood Cafe ex-rel Lou-Ann, Inc. v.

Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909
(3d Cir. 1985)). It is well-established that a party must overcome a high hurdle to succeed in
such a motion. A court should exercise its discretion to alter or amend its judgment only if the
movant demonstrates: (1) a change in the controlling law; (2) a clear error of law or fact or to
prevent manifest injustice; or (3) availability of new evidence not available when the judgment
was granted. See id. Motions for reconsideration are not intended to provide a “second bite at
the apple” or to provide a mechanism for losing parties to ask the Court to rethink its decision.
Plaintiff fails to meet the standard for reconsideration: he does not cite a change in the
controlling law—let alone cite any case in support of his position; he does not demonstrate a

clear error of law or fact that is of any consequence;1 and he does not show the availability of
any new evidence not previously available. Plaintiffs’ motion instead serves as a sort of rebuttal
to this Court’s earlier Omnibus Pretrial Motion Order, which is not the purpose of
reconsideration. As such, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of June, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/Terrence F. McVerry
Senior United States District Judge
cc:

ROBERT HANKINS
DT-3209
SCI CAMP HILL
P.O. BOX 200
CAMP HILL, PA 17001
PRO SE
Mary Lynch Friedline, Esquire
Email: [e-mail]

1. To her credit, counsel for Defendant candidly corrected a prior factual error, which Plaintiff highlighted in his
motion. But even with that correction, the Court’s conclusion regarding Dantzler does not change because he was
“not housed at SCI-Albion on March 19, 2010 when this incident occurred, and therefore, [he] could not possess any
personal knowledge of the incident or what happened that day.” Hankins v. Wolf, No. 1:12-CV-00168, 2016 WL
3087677, at *3 (W.D. Pa. June 2, 2016)

2