The opinion of the court was delivered by: (Magistrate Judge Carlson)
Plaintiff Ernest Jack Hill, III, has filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its denial of a motion that he filed requesting that the Court take "judicial notice" of certain facts that he alleged in the second amended complaint filed in this case. (Doc. 52.) Plaintiff has also filed a related motion for leave to file a brief in support of Plaintiff's renewed motion for judicial notice. (Doc. 53.) Upon consideration, the motions will be denied, because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that reconsideration of our prior order is warranted, and, more fundamentally, because Plaintiff's underlying request that the Court take judicial notice of facts he believes Defendants have admitted is meritless.
This is a Bivens*fn1 action brought the Plaintiff, Ernest Jack Hill, III, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary - Canaan, in Waymart, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 27, Second Am. Compl.) In this suit, Hill has named more than two dozen individuals as defendants, all of whom appear to be employees or officials with the Bureau of Prisons who work at USP-Canaan and other federal correctional facilities throughout the United States. Hill has alleged that the various named defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious mental health needs. (Id.) In terms of his specific allegations of deliberate indifference, Hill avers that health care at the prison has been administered by staff who are not licensed to prescribe medication; that he has been wrongly denied care, and the opportunity to obtain care from local providers; and that the denial of certain medications has caused his cardiac and related conditions to worsen. (Id.) As relief, Hill seeks monetary damages.
On March 4, 2011, Defendants filed a collective motion to dismiss Hill's second amended complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. (Doc.
38.) The following day, Defendants filed a brief in support of their motion, together with a statement of facts (Doc. 39.) The Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to respond to motion not later than April 20, 2011, and authorizing Defendants to file a reply brief on or before May 4, 2011. (Doc. 41.) On April 11, 2011, Plaintiff moved for an enlargement of time to respond to the motion (Doc. 43), and the Court granted the motion, and directed Hill to respond on or before May 6, 2011 (Doc. 44). The Court later entered another order, enlarging Hill's deadline to respond until May 10, 2011. (Doc. 47.) Hill filed a brief in opposition to the motion on May 9, 2011. (Doc. 49.)
On April 11, 2011, Hill filed a motion seeking "judicial notice" that certain facts alleged in the second amended complaint, apparently because Defendants had not yet filed an answer, and Hill believed that their failure to do so had caused them to have forfeited their right to challenge certain facts alleged in the second amended complaint. (Doc. 42.) When Hill failed to file a timely brief in support of his motion, the Court entered an order denying the motion, deeming it to be withdrawn pursuant to Local Rule 7.5. (Doc. 45.)
Hill has now filed two motions relating to the Court's denial of his motion for "judicial notice." In the first motion, Hill asks the Court to reconsider the order denying the requested relief. (Doc. 52.) In the second motion, Hill moves for permission to file a brief in support of his motion for judicial notice. (Doc. 53.) Because neither motion has merit, both will be denied.
Although Hill's motions invite the Court to consider the leniency that he believes should be afforded to pro se litigants, as well as a variety of other legal issues, at bottom the motions pending before the Court suffer from a single inescapable flaw: Hill's request that the Court take "judicial notice" of certain facts alleged in the complaint has no legal basis and runs contrary to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth briefly below, we will deny Hill's pending motions.
A. Motion for Reconsideration: The Standard
In his first motion, Hill requests that the Court reconsider its order denying Plaintiff's motion for judicial notice. Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that reconsideration of our ...