Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carlton Mills v. City of Philadelphia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


September 22, 2011

CARLTON MILLS
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, ET AL.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mary A. McLAUGHLIN, J.

ORDER AND NOW, this 22nd day of September, 2011, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration or Reargument (Docket No. 25) and Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 26) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that these motions are DENIED.

The pro se plaintiff filed this action on April 13, 2011, alleging that the City of Philadelphia violated his procedural due process rights in the course of foreclosing on his home and selling it at a tax sale. The Court considered a motion for a temporary restraining order on April 13, 2011, and denied the motion after an ex parte hearing with the plaintiff on that date. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 13, 2011, adding the Five C's Group, who purchased the home at the city tax sale, as a defendant (Docket No. 10). The City of Philadelphia filed a motion to dismiss on June 7, 2011, arguing that the plaintiff's claims against the City were barred by Pennsylvania statute of limitations (Docket No. 9). On August 12, 2011, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 13) as well as a Petition to Strike Judgment/Request for Prompt Hearing (Docket No. 14). The Court scheduled an oral argument on both parties' motions for August 24, 2011. Before that hearing occurred, the plaintiff filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Ex Parte (Docket No. 17). A hearing was held before the Honorable Judge Slomsky on August 18, 2011 to consider that motion. Oral argument was then held by this Court on August 24, 2011. The Court granted the City of Philadelphia's motion to dismiss on August 24, 2011 (Docket No. 19) and denied the Plaintiff's outstanding motions on August 31, 2011 (Docket No. 24).

A judgment may be altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration shows: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court entered judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).

As to the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's order granting the City of Philadelphia's motion to dismiss, the plaintiff has not suggested an intervening change in the controlling law, nor has he presented new evidence that was unavailable when the Court granted the motion to dismiss. All of the plaintiff's claims against the City of Philadelphia were based on events which occurred in the year of 2008. Because the plaintiff is pro se, the Court questioned him during the two onthe-record hearings in this case about the events which led to his filing this suit. The Court wanted to be sure that the plaintiff had the opportunity to present any facts that alleged action by the City of Philadelphia within the statute of limitations. The Court incorporated those two conferences into its August 24 order. The Court concluded that there were no alleged facts which brought the plaintiff's claims against the City of Pennsylvania within the two-year statute of limitations.

The plaintiff now argues that previous state court actions and a bankruptcy proceeding should have been considered by this Court. This Court considered the plaintiffs arguments regarding these proceedings when it issued its August 24 order. This evidence does not allege any action by the City of Philadelphia within the statute of limitations, nor is it new evidence which was unavailable when the Court entered judgment. As for the third ground for reconsideration, the only errors of law suggested by the plaintiff concern the Court's denial of his motion.

As to the plaintiff's motion to reconsider the Court's denial of Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, the plaintiff likewise raises no intervening change of law, presents no new evidence not available when judgment was entered, and points only to the Court's denial of his motion as an error of law.

Accordingly, the plaintiff has not provided a reason for the Court to alter or amend its previous decisions, and the plaintiff's motions for reconsideration are denied.

BY THE COURT:

Mary A. McLaughlin

20110922

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.