Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Don Bailey and John/Jane Does 1-25 v. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

November 16, 2011

DON BAILEY AND JOHN/JANE DOES 1-25,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, PAUL KILLION, JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Arthur J. Schwab United States District Judge

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

MEMORANDUM ORDER

DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC NO. 19) OF OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT (DOC NO. 18)

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiffs, a Pennsylvania attorney, Don Bailey, and his clients, John/Jane Does 1-25, filed a civil rights Complaint against Defendants, Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the Disciplinary Board‟s Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Paul Killion, and John/Jane Does 1-10. Doc. no. 1. This civil rights Complaint sought emergency and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was accompanied by a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Doc. no. 2.

The Complaint indicated that Plaintiffs "have been in the process of preparing a civil complaint for money damages and injunctive relief against the [D]efendants." Doc. no. 1, at p.

1. The Complaint further indicated that "among the [D]efendants, [presumably, three of the John/Jane Does 1-10], are three sitting judges of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and one judge of the Third Circuit." Id. The Complaint further noted that some of the John/Jane Doe Plaintiffs were in active litigation in front of the John/Jane Doe judicial Defendants and thus, Plaintiff Bailey, could not set forth the gravamen of the allegations of the underlying lawsuit he was "in the process of preparing to file" against the named Defendants. Id. at p. 2.

Judge Nora Barry Fischer of the United States Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied Plaintiffs‟ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunctive Relief finding that under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Court would offend the principles of comity by interfering with the ongoing state proceeding -- i.e., the disciplinary proceeding against Plaintiff Bailey. Doc. no. 3. Accordingly, after applying the Younger three-part test and finding that all three prongs had been met, the Court abstained from exercising federal jurisdiction in this matter. Id.

Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Judge Fischer‟s Order (doc. no. 3), requesting that this Court reverse her decision, thereby enjoining the disciplinary state court proceedings against Plaintiff Bailey and granting him injunctive relief. Doc. no. 5. Plaintiffs‟ Motion to Reconsider was denied by this Court. Doc. nos. 9-10.

Next, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs‟ Complaint. Doc. no. 11. After granting Plaintiffs two extensions of time to respond to Defendants‟ Motion, Plaintiffs filed a response. Doc. no. 17. On October 28, 2011, this Court granted Defendants‟ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs‟ Complaint with prejudice indicating that given the state of the law, any amendment to the Complaint would be futile. Doc. no. 18.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs‟ Motion to Reconsider the Court‟s October 28, 2011 Order granting Defendants‟ motion which dismissed Plaintiffs‟ case with prejudice. See doc. no. 19. For reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs‟ Motion for Reconsideration will be denied.

II. Discussion

The purpose of a Motion for Reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. Howard Hess Dental Laboratories Inc. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 602 F.3d 237, 251 (3d Cir. 2010), citing Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Generally, a Motion for Reconsideration will only be granted on one of the following three grounds: (1) if there has been an intervening change in controlling law; (2) if new evidence, which was not previously available, has become available; or (3) if it is necessary to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. See, Howard Hess Dental, 602 F.3d at 251, citing Max's Seafood Cafe by Lou Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).

A court may not grant a Motion for Reconsideration when the motion simply restyles or rehashes issues previously presented. Pahler v. City of Wilkes Barre, 207 F.Supp.2d 341, 355 (M.D. Pa. 2001); see also Carroll v. Manning, 414 Fed. Appx. 396, 398 (3d Cir. 2011) (affirming denial of "motion for reconsideration and "petition‟ in support thereof appears to merely reiterate the allegations made in the . . . petition and does not set forth any basis justifying reconsideration."); and Grigorian v. Attorney General of U.S., 282 Fed. Appx. 180, 182 (3d Cir. 2008) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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