BROWN v. WOLF et al

Filing 547

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 495 Motion for Reconsideration of 447 District Court Judge Order of 8/12/21 Denying Injunctive Relief. Signed by Judge Marilyn J. Horan on 5/4/2022. (rtw)

Case 2:16-cv-01081-MJH-CRE Document 547 Filed 05/04/22 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALTON D. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOM WOLF, et. al,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 16-1081

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is Alton D. Brown’s Motion for Reconsideration of District Court Judge
Order of 8/12/21 Denying Injunctive Relief. ECF No. 495. All Defendants have filed Responses
to Mr. Brown’s Motion. ECF Nos. 501, 507, & 508. Mr. Brown was granted an extension of
time until March 31, 2022, to file a Reply to Defendants’ Responses. ECF No. 331. No Reply
has been filed and Mr. Brown has not sought an additional extension of time to file a Reply.
A proper motion for reconsideration “must rely on one of three grounds: (1) an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to
correct clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666,
669 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218
(3d Cir. 1995)). “Mere dissatisfaction with a court’s ruling is not a proper basis for
reconsideration.” Prusky v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co., 2003 WL 22597610, *2 (E.D. Pa. Nov 04,
2003), citing Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F.Supp. 1109, 1122
(E.D.Pa.1993). “Motions for reconsideration are not to be used to reargue or relitigate matters
already decided.” Haymond v. Lundy, 205 F.Supp.2d 390, 395 (E.D. Pa. 2002).

Case 2:16-cv-01081-MJH-CRE Document 547 Filed 05/04/22 Page 2 of 3

Mr. Brown asserts that reconsideration is warranted because the Court did not address
alleged retaliatory attacks designed to sabotage Mr. Brown’s pursuit of his legal rights; the
failure to permit a witness to testify and failure to consider certain evidence; the Court factually
erred in stating the date of Mr. Brown’s cancer diagnosis; and the decision was against the
weight of the evidence.
Mr. Brown has not met the standard for reconsideration in that he has not shown a need
to correct manifest errors of law or fact, an intervening change in law, or newly discovered
evidence. First, the Court has consistently constrained Mr. Brown’s request for injunctive relief
to matters related to his medical care and treatment. Alleged retaliatory conduct not directly
related to Mr. Brown’s medical care is outside the parameters of the request for injunctive relief.
Next, the Court considered extensive and wide-ranging evidence in coming to its conclusion to
deny injunctive relief. Mr. Brown has not pointed to any new evidence, or any evidence for that
matter, that would materially affect the Court’s decision. In addition, Mr. Brown’s allegation of
a factual error in the date of his diagnosis is also not determinative. The Court stated that the
diagnosis occurred in 2016, while Mr. Brown points to a biopsy conducted in 2018, which
confirmed the diagnosis. Finally, the argument that the Court’s decision is against the weight of
the evidence is reflective of a disagreement with the Court’s decision; which is not a proper basis
for reconsideration.
Accordingly, the following Order is entered.

2

Case 2:16-cv-01081-MJH-CRE Document 547 Filed 05/04/22 Page 3 of 3

AND NOW, this 4th day of May 2022, inasmuch as Mr. Brown has not presented an
intervening change in law; the availability of new evidence that was not available at the time of
his original motion; or the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest
injustice, Mr. Brown’s Motion for Reconsideration of District Court Judge Order of 8/12/21
Denying Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 495) is DENIED.
s/Marilyn J. Horan
Marilyn J. Horan
United States District Judge
cc:

Alton D. Brown, pro se
DL-4686
SCI Fayette
48 Overlook Drive
LaBelle, PA 15450-1050
(via U.S. First Class Mail)

3