IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
April 9, 2010
JAMES MARTSOLF, PLAINTIFF
MAJ. TERRY SEILHAMER, CPT. ROBERT LIZIK, AND SGT. GARY SCHULER, DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 9th day of April, 2010, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion (Doc. 92), wherein plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the memorandum and order of court (Doc. 90) dated March 17, 2010 (hereinafter "the March 17 order") ruling on the parties' motions in limine, and plaintiff requests, in the alternative, certification for an interlocutory appeal, and it appearing that plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court's order on the grounds that (1) the court engaged in a "gross abuse of discretion" in denying plaintiff's motion in limine,*fn1 and (2) the court failed to define or articulate precisely which items of evidence are to be excluded,*fn2 with respect to the portions of defendants' motion in limine that the court granted, and that plaintiff seeks certification for appeal,*fn3 and the court finding that the purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to present newly discovered evidence or to correct manifest errors of law or fact, see Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), that the court possesses inherent power to reconsider its interlocutory orders "when it is consonant with justice to do so," United States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d 600, 605 (3d Cir. 1973); Alea N. Am. Ins. Co. v. Salem Masonry Co. 301 F. App'x 119, 121 (3d Cir. 2008), and that a party may not invoke a motion for reconsideration as a means to relitigate matters of disagreement with the court or to raise stale arguments anew, see Abu-Jamal v. Horn, No. Civ. A. 99-5089, 2001 WL 1609761, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2001); see also Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220, 1231 (3d Cir. 1995) (rejecting a litigant's "classic attempt at a 'second bite at the apple'"), and the court concluding that plaintiff has not demonstrated that the March 17 order contains an error of law or fact,*fn4 and that plaintiff does not present newly discovered evidence,*fn5 and that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration primarily seeks to relitigate a "point of disagreement between the Court and the litigant," Abu-Jamal, 2001 WL 1609761, at *9; see also Ogden v. Keystone Residence, 226 F. Supp. 2d 588, 606 (M.D. Pa. 2002), it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 92) is DENIED.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge