Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 57.4 kB
Pages: 2
Date: December 1, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 362 Words, 2,316 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/9354/40.pdf

Download Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware ( 57.4 kB)


Preview Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:05-cv-00037-SLR Document 40 Filed 12/02/2005 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
HARRY SAMUEL, )
Plaintiff, )
v. i Civ. No. O5—O37—SLR
THOMAS CARROLL (WARDEN), LT. )
PORTER, COUNSELOR KRAMER, and )
the I.B.C.C. (CLASSIFICATION )
COMMITTEE) and DENTAL SERVICE,)
Defendants. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this (W‘day of December, 2005, having
reviewed plaintiff's second motion for reconsideration;
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration is denied. (D.I. 37)
1. Motion for Reconsideration. The 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). Accordingly, a court may alter or amend its judgment
if the movant demonstrates at least one of the following; (1) a
change in the controlling law; (2) availability of new evidence
not available when the decision issued; or (3) a need to correct
a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.
@ @

Case 1:05-cv-00037-SLR Document 40 Filed 12/02/2005 Page 2 of 2
2. In the motion for reconsideration, plaintiff
reiterates that defendants have classified him in a
discriminatory fashion because, allegedly, similarly situated
prisoners have been designated to less restrictive
classifications than plaintiff. (D.I. 37) As explained in the
initial review of plaintiff’s complaint, State regulations and
statutes governing the Delaware prison system do not provide
inmates with a protected interest in a particular prison
classification. Carrigan v. State of Delaware, 957 F. Supp. 1376
(D. Del. 1997); Abdul—Akbar v. Dept. of Correction, 910 F. Supp.
986 (D. Del. 1995). Moreover, the transfer of an inmate from one
classification to another has been found to be unprotected by the
Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, even if the
change in status involves a significant modification in
conditions of confinement. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468
(1983). Considering the standard for reconsideration in light of
this authority, plaintiff’s second motion for reconsideration is
denied. NOTE: NO ADDITIONAL MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS
ISSUE WILL BE ENTERTAINED BY THE COURT.
2