ROBINSON v. FOLINO et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 70 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 3/17/17. (Attachments: Exhibit A) [A copy of this Memorandum Order was mailed to Plaintiff on this date at his address of record]. (bb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HARVEY MIGUEL ROBINSON, JR.,
LOUIS S. FOLINO; PETER VIDONISH,
Sued in their individual capacities,
Civil Action No. 14-227
Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
Re: ECF No. 70
Plaintiff Harvey Miguel Robinson, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), is an inmate in the custody of the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”), and is currently incarcerated at the State
Correctional Institution at Greene (“SCI-Greene”). Plaintiff brought this civil rights action
against Defendants Louis S. Folino, the Superintendent at SCI-Greene, and Peter Vidonish, the
Unit Manager at SCI-Greene in charge of capital case prisoners, (collectively, “Defendants”),
alleging that Defendants violated his rights provided by the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 15, 2016,
ECF No. 36, which this Court granted in part and denied in part in an Opinion and Order dated
March 13, 2017. ECF No. 68. The Court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment insofar as
Defendants argued that Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim is barred by the statute of
limitations. In particular, the Court found that the evidence presented by Plaintiff created a
genuine issue of material fact regarding the procedures for collecting and processing inmate mail
and whether Plaintiff submitted the Complaint for mailing on December 19, 2013, or December
30, 2013, both of which are reflected on the cash slip that accompanied the Complaint.
Presently before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration (“the Motion”) that has been
filed by Defendants. ECF No. 70. In their Motion, Defendants take issue with the Court’s
finding that additional questions surrounding the dates reflected on the cash slip have been raised
by testimony that mail is only collected on Mondays through Friday, not on Sundays, yet
December 30, 2013, the date that Defendants claim Plaintiff filed the Complaint, was a Sunday.
ECF No. 68 at 9. Defendants argue, correctly so, that the Court’s observation is factually
incorrect as December 30, 2013, was a Monday, not a Sunday. Notwithstanding the error, it was
immaterial to the Court’s finding that a genuine issue of material fact exists relative to when
Plaintiff filed the Complaint.1 The Court’s denial of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
was based on the conflicting evidence regarding the normal procedures for processing inmate
mail and how it may actually be processed. Id. at 8-9. As stated by the Court in its Opinion, the
perceived inconsistency relative to the days of the week that mail is collected and when
Defendants claim Plaintiff’s Complaint was processed, merely raised additional questions
regarding the dates on the cash slip. Id. at 9. Defendants’ Motion therefore is properly denied.
See 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) (“[t]he purpose of a motion for reconsideration under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) is “‘to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present
newly discovered evidence’”) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the following Order is entered:
AND NOW, this 17th day of March, 2017, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration, ECF No. 70, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Maureen P. Kelly
MAUREEN P. KELLY
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
For reasons that the Court cannot explain, the 2013 calendar that it relied on shows that December 30, 2013, was a
Sunday. See Exhibit A.
Harvey Miguel Robinson, Jr.
175 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370
All Counsel of Record Via CM-ECF
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?