IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
August 2, 2011
APRIL C. HAMLIN,
THE WESTERN DISTRICT FEDERAL COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Nora Barry Fischer
ORDER OF COURT
Presently before the Court is a "Complaint to reinstate and amend case no. 11-907" (Docket No. ) filed by Plaintiff April Cherise Hamlin on July 18, 2011. The Court construes Plaintiff‟s submission as a motion for reconsideration of the Court‟s July 12, 2011 Order, dismissing this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (See Docket No. 2). For the following reasons, Plaintiff‟s motion for reconsideration  is denied.
"Motions for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are granted sparingly "[b]ecause federal courts have a strong interest in finality of judgments.‟" Jacobs v. Bayha, Civ. A. No. 07-237, 2011 WL 1044638, at *2 (W.D.Pa. Mar. 18, 2011) (quoting Continental Cas. Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc., 884 F.Supp. 938, 943 (E.D.Pa. 1995)) (emphasis added). "Because of the interest in finality, at least at the district court level . the parties are not free to relitigate issues the court has already decided." Williams v. City of Pittsburgh, 32 F.Supp .2d 236, 238 (W.D.Pa.1998) (citing Rottmund v. Continental Assurance Co., 813 F.Supp. 1104, 1107 (E.D.Pa.1992)). 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 Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985)). A Court may grant a motion for reconsideration if the moving party shows: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence which was not available when the court issued its order; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent a 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)).
Plaintiff‟s present submission consists of essentially an amended complaint setting forth many of the same allegations as those included in her in initial Complaint, which was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Docket No. 3). On review, the allegations contained in Plaintiff‟s "Complaint to reinstate and amend case no. 11-907" demonstrate to the Court that this case was appropriately dismissed. (Id.). As the Court recognized in its July 12, 2011 Order, a district court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate a collateral attack on orders issued regarding separate civil actions. See Gagliardi v. Standish, 2011 WL 2410989, at *1 (3d Cir. Jun. 16, 2011) ("A district court lacks "jurisdiction to adjudicate collateral challenges in the nature of appeals."). To this end, it is plainly inappropriate to file a lawsuit against the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in an effort to seek that those lawsuits be reopened.*fn1 Accordingly, as this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the present matter, this case was properly dismissed. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) ("If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.").
For these reasons, Plaintiff‟s motion for reconsideration  is denied.
Nora Barry Fischer United States District Judge