HAMILTON v. BROTHERS et al

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 28 MOTION to Amend Additional Findings by SHAWN HAMILTON. An appropriate order follows. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge on 3/7/2025. (mqe)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHAWN HAMILTON,
Plaintiff,
vs
MARK BROTHERS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2:24-0675
Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Shawn Hamilton (“Hamilton”), a prisoner who is incarcerated in the State
Correctional Institution at Pine Grove, Pennsylvania (“SCI Pine Grove”), brought a pro se civil
rights action against Mark Brothers, the Superintendent of SCI Pine Grove, and two unit
managers, Amy Varner and Donald Bechota. In the Complaint, he alleged that he was denied the
equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution because he was moved to a different housing unit that did not have a separate
dayroom and exercise machines.
On February 13, 2025, a Memorandum Opinion (ECF No. 25) and Order (ECF No. 26)
were issued, granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12). 1 In the Opinion, the Court
held that amendment of the Complaint would be futile because Hamilton could not overcome the
deficiencies in his Complaint. The Court’s Order also informed Hamilton that dismissal was with
prejudice and that he had thirty days from that date (or until March 17, 2025) to file a notice of
appeal with the district court clerk.

1

The parties consented to full jurisdiction by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
(ECF Nos. 17, 19.)

Pending before the Court is a motion to amend filed by Hamilton (ECF No. 28). For the
reasons that follow, the Court will construe the motion as a motion to alter or amend the
judgment under Rule 52(b) and will deny the motion.
I.

Procedural History
Hamilton initiated this action on May 8, 2024 by submitting a Complaint with a motion

to proceed in forma pauperis. After Hamilton resolved certain deficiencies, his motion was
granted and the Complaint was filed on August 1, 2024 (ECF No. 7). Hamilton alleged that on
September 20, 2023, he was relocated from Housing Unit C-1-B-105 to Unit H-B-167, because
of “food service job per order of C Unit Manager Amy Varner.” According to Hamilton, the HB
unit provided him with less dayroom recreational time and did not have exercise machines. He
alleged that he was treated differently than other inmates in the same situation for 55 days, or
until November 14, 2023. He specifically cited the more favorable treatment given to inmates
Reed, Sims and Caninavo, who were in a HA unit that had more dayroom recreational time and
exercise machines. (ECF No. 7-1 at 8-9.)
On October 8, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12). Thereafter, on
February 13, 2025, the Court filed a Memorandum Opinion finding that Hamilton could not state
a claim for denial of equal protection because he was not in a suspect class and, with respect to
the “class of one” theory that he asserted in response to the motion to dismiss, he did not allege
that he was similarly situated to other inmates “in all relevant aspects” or that the alleged
differences in treatment were the result of intentional or purposeful discrimination. The Court
concluded that no amendment would cure these deficiencies. The Court issued an Order that
granted Defendants’ motion, dismissed the case with prejudice and without leave to amend, and
informed Hamilton that he had thirty days in which to file a notice of appeal.

2

On March 5, 2025, Hamilton filed a “Motion to Amend Additional Findings” (ECF No.
28) that he states that he is filing under Rule 52(b).
In his motion, Hamilton contends that he has additional evidence of how he and certain
other inmates were similarly situated but treated differently. Specifically, he submits: a
declaration by inmate Terrence Reed that he is serving a life sentence without parole and is a
morning food service worker but is housed in Unit H-A; Hamilton’s declaration that inmate Sims
is serving a life sentence without parole and has a Z-Code status but is housed in Unit H-A and
received more hours of dayroom recreation; Hamilton’s own declaration that he is serving a life
sentence without parole and has a Z-Code status but was told by Unit Manager Bachota that he
was moved to Unit H-B because of his Z-Code status; and the declaration of inmate Mark Love
that he is serving a life sentence without parole and has a Z-Code status but also was told by
Bachota that he was being moved to Unit H-B because of his Z-Code status.
II.

Discussion
A. Construing Motion Under Rule 52(b)
The Supreme Court has stated that “the allegations of [a] pro se complaint [are held] to

less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972). Although Hamilton styles his motion as a “motion to amend,” the Court
previously determined that amendment would be futile and entered judgment against him.
However, Hamilton also cites to Rule 52(b), which relates to amending a judgment. For these
reasons, his motion will be construed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule
52(b). 2

2

Construing Hamilton’s motion under this rule also provides him with an additional period of
time within which to take an appeal to the Court of Appeals. Otherwise, the appeal period would
only run through March 17, 2025.
3

B. Altering or Amending a Judgment
Rule 52(b) states that, “On a party’s motion filed no later than 28 days after the entry of
judgment, the court may amend its findings—or make additional findings—and may amend the
judgment accordingly.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b). “Rule 52(b) allows a court to ‘amend its findings
or make additional findings and . . . amend the judgment accordingly.’ The purpose of this
motion is to allow a court to ‘correct manifest errors of law or fact, or in limited circumstances,
[for a party] to present newly discovered evidence.’” Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 125 F. App’x 406,
417 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Soberman v. Groff Studios Corp., 2000 WL 1253211, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
Sept.5, 2000)).
A party seeking reconsideration must show at least one of the following grounds: (1) an
intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not
available when the court granted the motion; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact
or to prevent manifest injustice. See North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d
1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995). See also Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176
F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
Hamilton has not met any of these grounds. He does not reference an intervening change
in the controlling law nor is the Court otherwise aware of a change that would apply here. He
also provides no basis for the Court to conclude that it committed any error of law or fact.
Moreover, while the declarations he has submitted are dated after the date of the Court’s order
dismissing this case, Hamilton does not state that the underlying facts or substance of these
declarations was new or not known to him when he made the factual allegations in his
Complaint. In fact, if anything, the additional information submitted in his motion undermines
his “class of one” equal protection claim because he states that Unit Manager Bachota told both

4

him and inmate Love that they were being transferred to Unit H-B because of their Z-Code
status.
Although Hamilton might disagree with the housing transfer decisions of the correctional
institution in which he is housed, he has failed to state an equal protection claim. Therefore, he
has not provided any basis for reconsidering the dismissal of his Complaint.
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a notice of appeal “must
be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed
from.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). However, if a party files a motion to alter or amend the
judgment under Rule 52(b), the time to file an appeal runs from the entry of the order disposing
of the motion. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(ii).
Therefore, Hamilton has thirty days from the entry of the order denying his motion to
amend in order to file a notice of appeal with the district court clerk.
III.

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.
An appropriate order will follow.

Dated: March 7, 2025

cc:

/s/ Patricia L. Dodge
PATRICIA L. DODGE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Shawn Hamilton
LK-3051
SCI Pine Grove
189 Fyock Road
Indiana, PA 15701

5