HIBBARD v. PENN-TRAFFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT

Filing 54

MEMORANDUM OPINION denying 53 MOTION for compensation and forgiveness of student loan filed by BETTY HIBBARD, and denying 51 MOTION for Reconsideration re 47 Order filed by BETTY HIBBARD. As set forth more fully within, Plaintiff' ;s motion for reconsideration 51 is denied. Plaintiff's motion for compensation and forgiveness of student loan [ECF No. 53] is denied. An injunction against further filings by plaintiff in this case will also issue. The injunction shall re quire that in order to make any additional filings, plaintiff shall attach to her submissions a statement certifying: (1) that the claims presented are new claims never before raised and previously disposed of by this court; (2) that the facts allege d are true; and (3) that plaintiff has no reason to believe that her claims are foreclosed by controlling law. Failure to attach the certification will result in denial of the motion. If it is determined, following notice and an opportunity to be heard on the matter, that the certification is false, plaintiff may be held in contempt of court and may be subject to sanctions and/or punishment. Signed by Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 2/19/2016. (cal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BETTY HIBBARD,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
PENN-TRAFFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT, )
)
Defendant.
)

Civil Case No. 13-622

MEMORANDUM OPINION
CONTI, Chief District Judge.
I.

INTRODUCTION
Pending before the court is the March 2, 2015, Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 51)

filed pro se by Betty Hibbard (“plaintiff”). Plaintiff requests that the court permit her to file a
breach of contract claim against Penn-Trafford School District (“defendant”). This court
ostensibly exercises subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s federal claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), and over plaintiff’s state claim pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1367(a) (supplemental jurisdiction). For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s motion will
be DENIED.
II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 23, 2015, this court issued a Memorandum Opinion (ECF No. 45) and Order

(ECF No. 47), denying the latest in a string of attempts by plaintiff to refile various federal
discrimination and state law breach of contract claims against defendant. Specifically, the
federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, but the court did not dismiss any state law breach
of contract claim with prejudice. Plaintiff was advised that she could file her claim for breach of

contract in state court. (ECF No. 45 at 4.) The court held that plaintiff’s pattern of refiling
claims and motions for reconsideration without an adequate basis in law constituted abusive
conduct and a waste of judicial resources warranting an injunction. (ECF No. 45 at 6 – 7).
Plaintiff was given until March 1, 2013, to show cause as to why an injunction precluding further
filings and submissions in this case, without preapproval by the court, would be unreasonable.
(ECF No. 45 at 6 – 7). What may best be described as a Motion for Reconsideration was filed by
plaintiff on March 2, 2015. (ECF No. 51). No response was filed by defendant. The matter is
ripe for disposition.
III.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration “is to correct manifest errors of law or fact

or to present newly discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.
1985). A party seeking reconsideration must show at least one of the following: “(1) an
intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not
available when the court granted the [preceding motion]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error
of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance
Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). The interest in finality at the district court level
necessitates that motions for reconsideration be granted only sparingly to discourage relitigating
issues already decided by the court. Am. Beverage Corp. v. Diageo N. Am., Inc., 2013 WL
4010825 at *1 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 6, 2013) (citing Rottmund v. Cont’l Assurance Co., 813 F.Supp.
1104, 1107 (E.D. Pa. 1992)).
IV.

DISCUSSION

2

The issue of timeliness aside, plaintiff’s motion does not address the court’s inquiry as to
the appropriateness of an injunction. Plaintiff’s filings demonstrate her concerns about her dire
financial situation. This court has held she did not plead any federal claim that could redress her
concerns. She is free to pursue any state claims she has in state court. In spite of having her
federal case dismissed for a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (ECF No. 45 at 4), plaintiff
simply reiterates earlier claims for breach of contract, and makes general allegations regarding
economic losses and other hardships stemming therefrom. (ECF No. 51 at 1 – 2). Filings of
this nature are exactly what this court’s January 23, 2015, Memorandum Opinion and Order were
meant to address. While the court is sensitive to plaintiff’s pro se status, plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration is characteristic of a larger pattern of unresponsive, duplicative filings that serve
no purpose – however inadvertent – other than to waste this court’s resources.
It is now abundantly clear that plaintiff will continue to make such claims absent action
by this court.1 Gage v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., AS, 555 F.App’x 148, 152 (3d Cir. 2014). The
All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), enables district courts to restrict access to the federal courts
when a litigant repeatedly files frivolous claims. Banks v. Unknown Named Number of U.S.
Postal Inspectors, 2013 WL 5945786 at *6 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2013) (citing Mallon v. Padova,
806 F.Supp. 1189, 1192 – 93 (E.D. Pa. 1992); Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 901 F.2d 329, 332 (3d
Cir. 1990)). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has explicitly endorsed the use of injunctions to
require litigants to obtain the approval of the district court before submitting additional filings.
Id.

1

Indeed, on January 6, 2016, plaintiff filed yet another motion requesting compensation and forgiveness of existing
student loan debt – among other expenses – resulting from her discharge at the hands of defendant in contravention
of federal and state law. (ECF No. 53). This motion will be denied for the same reasons as plaintiff’s March 2,
2015, Motion for Reconsideration. See, DISCUSSION, supra.

3

Presently, the record demonstrates that plaintiff received notice of a pending injunction
and was provided with an opportunity to respond. (ECF No. 46). Instead, plaintiff once again
opted to reargue a state law claim that had already been dismissed without prejudice. She may
file that claim in state court if she so chooses. Plaintiff’s failure to file an appropriate response to
the court’s January 23, 2015, Memorandum Opinion and Order illustrates a persistent pattern of
abusive conduct, and reinforces the need for an injunction.
V.

CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 51) is denied,

and Plaintiff’s Motion for compensation and forgiveness of student loan (ECF No. 53) is denied.
An injunction against further filings by plaintiff in this case will also issue. The injunction shall
require that in order to make any additional filings, plaintiff shall attach to her submissions a
statement certifying: (1) that the claims presented are new claims never before raised and
previously disposed of by this court; (2) that the facts alleged are true; and (3) that plaintiff has
no reason to believe that her claims are foreclosed by controlling law. Failure to attach the
certification will result in denial of the motion. If it is determined, following notice and an
opportunity to be heard on the matter, that the certification is false, plaintiff may be held in
contempt of court and may be subject to sanctions and/or punishment.
An appropriate order will be entered.

s/ Joy Flowers Conti
Joy Flowers Conti
Chief United States District Judge
Dated: February 19, 2016
cc/ecf: All counsel of record

4