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

Case 1:04-cv-00201-JJF Document 66 Filed O4/10/2007 Page1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
KEVIN L. DICKENS, :
Plaintiff, ;
v. ; Civil Action No. O4-20l—JJF
COMMISSIONER STAN TAYLOR, ;
et al., :
Defendants. ;
MEMORANDUM ORDER
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, who appears pro gg, filed suit this civil rights
case against fifty—three Defendants. (D.I. I.) Plaintiff filed
several Amended Complaints. On November 3, 2006, the Court
conducted an initial screening of the case. As a result, several
claims and Defendants were dismissed from the case. (D.I. 31,
32.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a Motion For Relief From Order/
Reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, along with a
Memorandum of Law. (D.I. 34, 35.)
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
that a party may file a motion for relief from a final judgment
for the following reasons: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise,
or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence by which due
diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a
new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore
denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other

Case 1:04-cv-OO201—JJF Document 66 Filed O4/10/2007 Page 2 of 4
misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5)
the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a
prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or
otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment
should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason
justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b).
Plaintiff takes exception to the Court's rulings in its
Memorandum Opinion. Therefore, the Court construes the motion as
one under Rule 59(e), as opposed to one under Rule 60. gg; ggigh
v. Evans, 853 F.2d 155, 158-59 (3d Cir. 1988). A Rule 59(e)
motion is the proper device a litigant should use to “to
relitigate the original issue." Pittsburgh Terminal Corp. v.
Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 824 F.2d 249, 253 (3d Cir.1987). Under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), a party seeking to alter or amend a
judgment must establish one of the following grounds for
reconsideration: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling
law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available
when the court granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3)
the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent
manifest injustice.” Max’s Seafood Cafe, by Lou—Ann, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)(citing North River
Ins., Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir.
1995)). A motion for reconsideration is not properly grounded on
2

Case 1:04-cv-00201-JJF Document 66 Filed 04/10/2007 Page 3 of 4
a request that a court rethink a decision already made. See
Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 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.” Brambles 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.” Brambles USA, 735 F. Supp. at
1241 (D. Del. 1990) (citations omitted); See algg D. Del. LR
7.1.5.
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff asks that the Court reduce the number of service
copies required of him based upon his ig fgrma pauperis status.
The Court will deny that portion of the motion. Plaintiff chose
to name a large number of Defendants, and he is required to
follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and provide adequate
service copies if he wishes to pursue his claims against
Defendants.
Plaintiff also asks the Court to reinstate the previously
dismissed defendants with the exception of Defendants Lt. Porter,
Joe Hudson, Ms. Havel and Counselor Kromka. Plaintiff’s
3

Case1:O4-cv-00201-JJF Document 66 Filed O4/10/2007 Page40f4
Memorandum of Law contains a litany of arguments for the Court to
consider in support of reinstatement of the dismissed Defendants.
Plaintiff argues throughout the Motion that the Court
“misinterpreted" certain sections of the Amended Complaint and
misapplied the law. It is clear when reading the pending Motion
that Plaintiff simply disagrees with the Court's screening Order.
The Court carefully read Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and in its
twenty—eight page Memorandum Opinion explained in great detail
the reasons for dismissing certain Defendants and claims.
There is no need to correct a clear error of law or fact or
to prevent manifest injustice. Moreover, Plaintiff has not
demonstrated any of the grounds necessary to warrant
reconsideration and, therefore, his motion will be denied.
THEREFORE, at Wilmington this qLQL day of April, 2007, IT IS
ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration (D.I. 34) is DENIED.
( fl M . O
`IYED·-TAI DISTRICT J1¤GE
4

Case 1:04-cv-00201-JJF

Document 66

Filed 04/10/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00201-JJF

Document 66

Filed 04/10/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00201-JJF

Document 66

Filed 04/10/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00201-JJF

Document 66

Filed 04/10/2007

Page 4 of 4