United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
November 3, 2005.
CHARLES TURIANO, Plaintiff
JEFFREY BEARD, et al. Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: SYLVIA RAMBO, Senior District Judge
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Plaintiff, Charles Turiano, an inmate at the State Correctional
Institution in Huntingdon ("SCI-Huntingdon"), Pennsylvania,
commenced this pro se action with a civil rights complaint
filed pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Named as
Defendants are Secretary of Corrections Jeffrey Beard, and
SCI-Huntingdon Superintendent Raymond Lawler. Plaintiff claims
that SCI-Huntingdon has inadequate legal assistance for its
inmates, resulting in a denial of access to the courts. By order
dated September 8, 2005 (Doc. 6), this court dismissed
Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to the provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Presently before the court is Petitioner's motion for
reconsideration of the Court's order dismissing his complaint.
Because this court finds that Petitioner has failed to provide
the evidence required for a successful motion for
reconsideration, Petitioner's motion will be denied. A motion for reconsideration is a device of limited utility,
and it permits the district court to reconsider its prior
judgment. Hairston v. Alert Safety Light Products, 307 F.3d 717
(8th Cir. 2002). It may be used only to correct manifest
errors of law or fact, or to present newly discovered precedent
or evidence which, if discovered previously, might have affected
the court's decision. Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906,
909 (3d Cir. 1985). It has also been held that a motion for
reconsideration is appropriate in instances such as where the
court has ". . . misunderstood a party, or has made a decision
outside the adversarial issues presented to the court by parties,
or has made an error not of reasoning, but of apprehension." See
Rohrbach v. AT & T Nassau Metals Corp., 902 F. Supp. 523, 527
(M.D. Pa. 1995), vacated in part on other grounds on
reconsideration, 915 F. Supp. 712 (M.D. Pa. 1996) (quoting
Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc.,
99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983). "Because federal courts have a strong
interest in the finality of judgments, motions for
reconsideration should be granted sparingly." Continental
Casualty Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc., 884 F. Supp. 937, 943
(E.D. Pa. 1995).
In his pending motion, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a change
of law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error of law
that indicates his previous claim merits reconsideration. In the order dismissing Plaintiff's complaint,
the court concluded that Plaintiff lacked standing because he had
not presented an actual injury sufficient to sustain his claim.
In his pending motion, Plaintiff argues that he does have an
actual injury sufficient to support standing. However, the
arguments set forth do not present "newly discovered evidence
which, if discovered previously, might have affected the court's
decision" Harsco Corp., 779 F.2d at 909, and Plaintiff fails to
present other arguments to support his claim for reconsideration.
Ultimately, Plaintiff merely wants this Court to rethink its
earlier decision. Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon,
836 F.Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (a motion for reconsideration
is not properly grounded on a request that a court rethink a
decision already made). Consequently, Plaintiff's motion will be
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration (Doc. 7) is DENIED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.