CALDWELL v. FOLINO et al

Filing 214

ORDER denying 213 Motion for Reconsideration for the reasons set forth more fully in the order itself. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 5/29/2013. [A copy of this Order was mailed to Plaintiff on this day at his address of record]. (bb )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CLAY CALDWELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
C.O. SOKOL,
Defendant.

)
)
) Case No. 08-122
)
) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
)
) Re: ECF No. 213
)
)
ORDER

Following over four years of litigation, Plaintiff’s case against Defendant C.O. Sokol, the
only defendant remaining in the case, proceeded to trial before a jury on March 28, 2012. On
March 30, 2012, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant Sokol and against Plaintiff.
See ECF No. 198. On May 3, 2013 -- over one year later -- Plaintiff filed a Motion for Relief
from Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), (b)(1)(5)(6), seeking reimbursement for fees
and costs he incurred in the prosecution of this action. ECF No. 209. Finding that Plaintiff had
not offered any basis showing that he is entitled to relief from judgment or that he is entitled to
fees and costs associated with the prosecution of this action, this Court entered an order dated
May 7, 2013, denying Plaintiff’s Motion. ECF No. 211. See Farrar v. Hobby, 506, U.S. 103,
111-12 (1992); Evans v. Port Auth. of N.Y., 273, F.3d 346, 358 (3d Cir. 2001). Plaintiff has
now filed a Motion for Reconsideration of that Order which will be denied.
A motion for reconsideration is granted only if one of three situations is shown: “(1) an
intervening change in controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence not previously
available, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice.” Reich
v. Compton, 834 F. Supp. 753, 755 (E.D. Pa. 1993), citing Dodge v. Susquehanna Univ., 796 F.

Supp. 829, 830 (M.D. Pa. 1992). See Williams v. Pittsburgh, 32 F. Supp. 2d 236, 238 (W.D. Pa.
1998) (internal citations omitted) (“motions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly; the
parties are not free to relitigate issues the court has already decided .... rightly or wrongly ...”).
Here, Plaintiff has not suggested that that there has been an intervening change in the law
or a need to correct an error of law. Nor has Plaintiff presented any additional arguments that
the Court has not already considered or provided any new evidence that would suggest the
requested relief is warranted. Rather, Plaintiff is merely asking the Court to rethink its earlier
decision which does not provide the Court with a proper basis for revisiting the issue.
Accordingly, the following Order is entered:
AND NOW, this 29th day of May, 2013, upon consideration of the Motion for
Reconsideration submitted by Plaintiff, ECF No. 213, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
Motion is denied.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Maureen P. Kelly
MAUREEN P. KELLY
United States Magistrate Judge
cc:

CLAY CALDWELL
EM-2163
S.C.I. Benner
301 Institution Drive
Bellefonte, PA 16823
All counsel of record by CM/ECF

2