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)

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