COULTER v. GALE et al

Filing 7

ORDER denying 6 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 6 Motion for Recusal; denying 6 Motion to Stay. As more fully stated in the Order. A copy of this Order was mailed to Plaintiff at her address of record. Additionally, a voicemail message was left at Plaintiff's telephone number of record confirming that the hearing scheduled for 12/17/2012 would not be stayed. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 12/14/2012. (dad)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JEAN COULTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTINE STUDENY, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________
JEAN COULTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARY SUZANNE RAMSDEN, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________
JEAN COULTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES E. MAHOOD, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________
JEAN COULTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
GALE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 12-60
Judge Cathy Bissoon
Magistrate Judge Mitchell

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 12-1050
Judge Cathy Bissoon
Magistrate Judge Mitchell

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 12-1241
Judge Cathy Bissoon
Magistrate Judge Mitchell

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 12-1461
Judge Cathy Bissoon
Magistrate Judge Mitchell

ORDER
Currently before this Court is Plaintiff’s Petition for Stay, Reconsideration and Recusal,
in which she seeks a variety of forms of relief in four of the eight civil rights cases that she has
filled in this Court since September of 2011. Her request for a stay appears to be applicable to
Civil Action Numbers 12-60, 12-1050, and 12-1241, in which a show cause hearing is scheduled
for December 17, 2012, in order to address Plaintiff’s filing of vexatious, duplicative lawsuits, as
well as a litany of motions that she knows to be without merit. See, e.g. (Docs. 2 and 9) Coulter
v. Mahood, No. 12-1241 (W.D. Pa. filed Aug. 28, 2012). While Plaintiff presents no meritorious
reason in this motion to stay this hearing, it is noted that, with the filing of her notice of appeal in
12-60, this Court has been divested of jurisdiction over that case. See, e.g., Griggs v. Provident
Consumer Discount, 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (“[t]he filing of a notice of appeal is an event of
jurisdictional significance – it 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”); Gleeson v. Prevoznik,
253 F. App’x 176, 179 (3d Cir. 2007) (“[t]imely filing of a notice of appeal conferred
jurisdiction on this Court and divested the District Court of control of the case”).
While it would be improper to address the show cause order in 12-60 at the December
17, 2012, hearing, there is no issue – jurisdictional or otherwise – precluding this Court from
addressing the show cause orders in 12-1050 and 12-1251. Further, it would not interfere with
the Court of Appeals’s jurisdiction over the appeal from the dismissal of 12-60 to consider
Plaintiff’s response to the show cause order in in that case – which, it is noted, is identical in
substance to the supplemental show cause orders issued on December 7, 2012, in 12-1050 and
12-1241. Nor would it interfere with that court’s jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s conduct in
12-60 when determining whether the issuance of a vexations litigant order in 12-1050 and

2

12-1251 would be appropriate. Accordingly, the show cause hearing scheduled for December
17, 2012, will not be stayed – however, the hearing will not result in the issuance of an order on
the pending show cause order in Civil Action Number 12-60.
Plaintiff next moves for reconsideration – which appears to be applicable only to
12-1461. As Plaintiff is well aware from this Court’s denial of a similarly frivolous motion in
12-60, such relief is granted sparingly “[b]ecause federal courts have a strong interest in the
finality of judgments.” Continental Cas. Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc., 884 F. Supp. 938, 943
(E.D. Pa. 1995). As the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has noted, 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 Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.1999)
(quoting Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985)). “[J]udgment may be
altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration shows at least one of the following
grounds: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence
that was not available when the court granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need
to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Id., citing North River
Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reins. Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir.1995). A motion for reconsideration,
however, is not to be used as a means to reargue matters already argued and disposed of or as an
attempt to relitigate a point of disagreement between the Court and the litigant. Abu-Jamal v.
Horn, No. CIV. A. 99-5089, 2001 WL 1609761, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2001) (internal
quotations omitted)).
An examination of the instant motion leads inescapably to the conclusion that Plaintiff’s
argument is frivolous. Plaintiff fails to raise any new facts or intervening change of controlling
law, or make a showing of the need to correct clear error of law or fact to prevent manifest

3

injustice. Instead, she appears to take issue with the fact that the undersigned – a District Judge –
issued an order dismissing 12-1461 without first waiting for the magistrate judge to issue a report
and recommendation. She also appears dissatisfied with the fact that she never was given the
option to consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, or to enter a district judge option on
the docket.1 Stated in the kindest possible terms, these arguments do not provide a basis for
reconsideration under the above standard. As such, this portion of Plaintiff’s motion will be
denied.
Finally, Plaintiff, once again, moves for recusal of the undersigned and the magistrate
judge, as well as transfer of this case to another venue. For the reasons stated by this and other
courts in its orders denying similar motions in Plaintiff’s other cases, this relief will be denied as
well. See, e.g., Coulter v. Doerr, No. 12-1864, 2012 WL 1941594, at *3 (3d Cir. May 30, 2012).
Accordingly, the following order is entered.

AND NOW, this 14th day of December, 2012,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Petition for Stay, Reconsideration and
Recusal is DENIED, as stated above.
BY THE COURT:
s/Cathy Bissoon
CATHY BISSOON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Plaintiff has filed a multitude of motions an attempt to force the recusal of the magistrate judge
and the undersigned from her cases. Indeed, the instant motion includes the accusation that the
magistrate judge has acted as “Defendants’ Counsel” in several of Plaintiff’s cases. As such, the
irony of this particular argument is not lost on this Court.
4

cc:
JEAN COULTER
4000 Presidential Boulevard
Apartment #507
Philadelphia, PA 19131

5