PONDEXTER v. PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION et al

Filing 4

ORDER indicating that, for reasons stated more fully within said Order, Plaintiff's "Motion for Reconsideration re Order Dismissing Case" 3 is denied. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 6/28/13. (jg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EARL A. PONDEXTER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
Civil Action No. 13-732
)
Hon. Nora Barry Fischer
PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS
)
COMMISSION, GOVERNOR THOMAS
)
CORBETT, GERALD S. ROBINSON,
)
Chairman, JOANN L. EDWARDS,
)
Executive Director, LYLE M. WOOD,
)
PHRC Representative, DIANE BLANCETT
)
MADDOCK, Assistant Chief General
)
Counsel/PHRC, THE ALLEGHENY
)
COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al,
)
FRANK AGGAZIO, Executive Director,
)
JOHN JOYCE, General Counsel, THOMAS
)
MCPOYLE, Assistant General Counsel,
)
JAMES BULLS, Director of Housing
)
Operations, JAMES T. ZAPF, Assistant
)
Director of Housing, DEBRA
)
BRETENSTEIN, Legal Assistant/HR
)
Department, et al,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 28th day of June, 2013, upon consideration of Plaintiff Earl A.
Pondexter’s “Motion for Reconsideration re Order Dismissing Case” (Docket No. [3]), wherein
he requests the Court reconsider its May 29, 2013 decision (Docket No. 2), dismissing his
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Motion [3] is DENIED. In so holding the Court
notes the following.

1

Motions for reconsideration are granted sparingly “[b]ecause federal courts have a strong
interest in finality of judgments.” Jacobs v. Bayha, No. 07-237, 2011 WL 1044638, at *2
(W.D.Pa. Mar. 18, 2011). “Because of the interest in finality, at least at the district court level …
the parties are not free to relitigate issues the court has already decided.” Williams v. City of
Pittsburgh, 32 F.Supp.2d 236, 238 (W.D.Pa. 1998) (citing Rottmund v. Continental Assurance
Co., 813 F.Supp. 1104, 1107 (E.D.Pa. 1992)). 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)). A Court may grant a motion for reconsideration if the
moving party shows: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new
evidence which was not available when the court issued its order; or (3) the need to correct a
clear error of law or fact or to prevent a manifest injustice. Max’s Seafood Café, 176 F.3d at 677
(citing North River Ins. Co. v. Cigna Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)).
In this instance case there is no new intervening change in the controlling law or new
evidence available to the Court. Indeed, Plaintiff argues as the basis for his motion that the
Court must correct a clear error. (Docket No. 3 at 8). Plaintiff’s complaint in the present case
challenges the dismissal of his prior civil suit at civil number 11-857, mainly due to what he
alleges was reliance on a sham affidavit. (Docket No. 1). Dismissal of that civil case was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on May 3, 2013. (Docket Nos. 125, 126
at Civ. No. 11-857). Accordingly, the Court dismissed the instant complaint because it lacked
“jurisdiction to adjudicate collateral challenges in the nature of appeals” and on the basis of res
judicata/collateral estoppel. Gagliardi v. Standish, 431 F. App’x 117, 118 (3d Cir. 2011);
(Docket No. 2).

2

Plaintiff’s current motion for reconsideration makes it even more clear that in this suit he
is attempting to challenge both this Court’s and the Third Circuit’s opinion on his previous civil
suit at civil action number 11-857. (Docket No. 3 at 19) (“Plaintiff intends to file an appeal in
the racist 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal…relative to their racist tyrannical proclivities and in
affirming Judge Fischer’s clearly erroneous judgment”). As previously stated in the Court’s
order dismissing this case (Docket No. 2 at 2), a district court lacks “jurisdiction to adjudicate
collateral challenges in the nature of appeals.” Gagliardi v. Standish, 431 F. App’x 117, 118 (3d
Cir. 2011). Only the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has subject matter
jurisdiction over a challenge to a final order issued by a district court, including dismissal of a
civil action. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292. Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff continues to
claim res judicata and/or collateral estoppel principles do not apply, the Court reiterates that
collateral estoppel bars plaintiff’s claims because the issues are the same as those in the prior
action, were actually litigated, determined by a final and valid judgment, and such determination
was essential to that prior judgment. Burlington N. R. Co. v. Hyundai Merch. Marine Co., Ltd.,
63 F.3d 1227, 1232 (3d Cir. 1995). As such, Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed with prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Tauro v. Allegheny Cnty., Civ. No. 09-0354, 2009 WL
4262977 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 24, 2009).
Accordingly, Plaintiff Motion for Reconsideration [3] is DENIED.
s/Nora Barry Fischer
Nora Barry Fischer
United States District Judge
cc:

Earl A. Pondexter
P.O. Box 2311
Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15230
(Regular & Certified Mail)

3