Free Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-00576-JJF Document 40 Filed 08/16/2006 Page1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DARREN LAMONT SEAWRIGHT and )
DANIEL M. WOODS, )
Plaintiffs, g
v. g Civ. N0. 05-576-KAJ
WARDEN RAFAEL WILLIAMS, and ;
MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR )
PACECO, )
Defendants. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff Daniel M. Woods ("Woods"), moves for reconsideration ofthe Court’s
denial of request for default as to all the defendants. (D.|. 28.) The Court denied the
request for default on the basis that service had not yet been effected. (D.l. 27.) Since
the entry of that order on June 16, 2006, it appears that the attorney general has been
served and on June 29, 2006, the defendants filed an answer to the complaint. (D.l.
30.)
The standard for obtaining relief under Rule 59(e) is difficult for Woods to meet.
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact
or to present newly discovered evidence. Harsco Corp. v. Z/otnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909
(3d Cir. 1985). A motion for reconsideration may be granted if the moving party shows:
(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that
was not available when the court issued its order; or (3) the need to correct a clear error
of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Max's Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176
F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).

Case 1:05-cv-00576-JJF Document 40 Filed 08/16/2006 Page 2 of 2
A motion for reconsideration is not properly grounded on a request that a court
rethink a decision already made. See G/endon Energy Co. v. Borough of G/endon, 836
F.Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa.1993). Motions for reargument or reconsideration may
not be used "as a means to argue new facts or issues that inexcusably were not
presented to the court in the matter previously decided." Bramb/es USA, Inc. v. Blocker,
735 F.Supp. 1239, 1240 (D.Del.1990). Reargument, however, may be appropriate
where "the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside
the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not
of reasoning but of apprehension." Bramb/es USA, 735 F.Supp. at 1241 (D.DeI. 1990)
(citations omitted); See also D. Del. LR 7.1.5.
Woods does not argue there was an intervening change in the controlling law or
the availability of new evidence that was not available when I issued my order denying
entry of default. Nor does he argue that there is a need to correct a clear error of law or
fact. He merely argues that as of June 20, 2006, he had yet to receive an answer or
response to his complaint. Reconsideration is not warranted on that basis.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (D.I. 28) is
DENIED. /T`· __)
LIl\ ITED STATES DISKTRI T 4 UDGE
August fé , 2006
Wilmington, Delaware
2