LANG v. BUSH et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying 9 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on July 19, 2017. (kcc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JON LANG, Petitioner, v. ERIC BUSH, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 17 – 656 Magistrate Judge Lisa Pup Lenihan MEMORANDUM ORDER Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order denying without prejudice Petitioner’s Motion to Permit Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Respondent Board of Probation and Parole. (ECF No. 9.) In Petitioner’s Motion to Permit Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, he sought responses to twenty interrogatories from the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. (ECF No. 3.) In its Order dated June 21, 2017, the Court denied without prejudice Petitioner’s request after determining that it was not appropriate for consideration at this time. (ECF No. 8.) Upon review of Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, the Court finds that Petitioner has not demonstrated any of the grounds necessary to warrant reversal of that Order. See Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (setting forth the grounds that must be demonstrated before altering, or amending, a court order). Additionally, once again the Court notes that Petitioner has not shown good cause for discovery. The majority of Petitioner’s requests for interrogatories are irrelevant to his claims and the answers to the few that are relevant are already found in the record. Specifically, 1 requests (a) and (f) through (t) do not pertain to either of Petitioner’s two claims and requests (b) through (e) are unnecessary as the basis for the Board’s denial of parole is specifically set forth in its Notice of Decision dated August 10, 2015, and the record does not need further factual development as to these issues in order to rule on Petitioner’s two claims. However, should this Court determine that an evidentiary hearing is necessary, Petitioner’s request will be reconsidered at that time. As such, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 19th day of July, 2017, that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 9) is denied. /s/ Lisa Pupo Lenihan Lisa Pupo Lenihan United States Magistrate Judge cc: Counsel of record (Via CM/ECF electronic mail) 2

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?