WASHINGTON v. DELISMA et al

Filing 118

ORDER denying 117 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on 04/26/21. (jer)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HENRY UNSELD WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
KANSKY DELISMA, WILLIAM L.
BOWERS, PHILLIP MAUST, HEIDI
SROKA, ROBERT SNYDER, R.
PESCHOCK, J. GIRONE, ELLIS
KAUFFMAN, RICHARD IRWIN,
ROXANNE PLAYSO, LARENE
DONNELLY, JAMES FETTERMAN,
RICHARD HUTCHINSON, DAKOTA
TESTA, ERIC TICE, and BRIAN P. HYDE
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-00196
Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan

ECF No. 117

ORDER
On March 31, 2021 the court ruled on five (5) motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint, denying in part and granting in part. ECF Nos. 109, 110. Plaintiff filed oppositions
to all of the motions. ECF Nos. 87, 88, 101. He now raises, in a motion for reconsideration, the
same arguments he raised in his briefs in opposition.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has instructed that “[t]he
purpose of a motion for reconsideration . . . is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to
present newly discovered evidence.” Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176
F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.
1985)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, evidence that is not newly discovered may
not be submitted in support of a motion for reconsideration. Harsco Corp., 779 F.2d at 909
(citing DeLong Corp. v. Raymond Int’l Inc., 622 F.2d 1135, 1139-40 (3d Cir. 1980)). Therefore,

motions for reconsideration will be granted only where a party demonstrates: “(1) an intervening
change in controlling law; [or] (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 N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir.
1995)).
“A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to present previously
available evidence or new arguments.” Federico v. Charterers Mut. Assurance Ass’n, 158 F.
Supp. 2d 565, 578 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (quoting Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Parkway Exec. Office
Ctr., Nos. Civ. A. 96-121, Civ. A. 96-122, 1997 WL 611674, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 24, 1997))
(citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A motion for reconsideration may not be
used to present a new legal theory for the first time or to raise new arguments that could have
been made in support of the original motion.” McNeal v. Maritank Phila., Inc., No. Civ. A. 970890, 1999 WL 80268, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 1999) (citing Vaidya v. Xerox Corp., No. Civ. A.
97-547, 1997 WL 732464, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 1997)).
In the case at bar, Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider the Memorandum Opinion and
Order on the third ground—to correct both errors of law and fact and to prevent manifest
injustice. A litigant who bases his motion to reconsider upon that ground is cautioned to
evaluate whether the perceived clear error of law is in reality just a point of disagreement
between the court and the litigant. Waye v. First Citizen’s Nat’l Bank, 846 F. Supp. 310, 314 n. 3
(M.D. Pa. 1994) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff was allowed to amend his complaint, in effect in two parts, following the initial
motions to dismiss. He was then allowed time to respond to all of the motions to dismiss. In this
Motion, he does not raise any arguments or fact not presented in his prior Amended

Complaint(s) or in his prior responses. This is a classic case of a disagreement with the Court’s
rulings. No manifest error of law or manifest injustice has been identified. Therefore,
This 26th day of April, 2021, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for
Reconsideration filed at ECF No. 117 is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________
LISA PUPO LENIHAN
United States Magistrate Judge

cc:

Henry Unseld Washington
AM-3086
S.C.I. Somerset
1600 Walters Mill Rd
Somerset, PA 15510