The opinion of the court was delivered by: DuBois, J.
This case arises out of the arrest of pro se plaintiff Jason Collura on July 22, 2010. Plaintiff asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff also asserts claims under Pennsylvania law for false arrest, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution. All claims are made against defendants City of Philadelphia, Police Officer Cedric White, Police Officer Joseph Corvi, Police Officer Daniel Davis, Sergeant Maria Ortiz-Rodriguez, Inspector Jerrold Bates, in their individual capacities, (collectively "City Defendants") and AlliedBarton Security Services LLC, ("AlliedBarton")*fn1 , Daniel Rosiello, and Diane Kowalski.
City Defendants and AlliedBarton separately moved to dismiss certain claims asserted against them. City Defendants also moved to strike impertinent and scandalous allegations in plaintiff's Complaint; AlliedBarton joined in the latter Motion.
The Court, by Memorandum and Order dated December 20, 2012, dismissed a number of plaintiff's claims without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint consistent with the Memorandum and Order within thirty (30) days. In that Memorandum and Order, the Court also granted the City Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and to Strike impertinent and scandalous allegations and dismissed the remainder of the Complaint without prejudice to plaintiff's right to file an amended complaint consistent with the Memorandum and Order within thirty (30) days.
Plaintiff responded to the Memorandum and Order by, inter alia, filing a Motion for Reconsideration and a request for permission to file an interlocutory appeal. He also filed a Notice to Stand on Complaint in which he "announc[es] [his] intention to stand on his complaint and disavows any intention to reinstitute the litigation."
For the reasons stated below, the Motion for Reconsideration and the request for permission to file an interlocutory appeal are denied.
The factual background is set forth in the Memorandum dated December 20, 2012, with one correction -- the Court amends the sentence that begins on third line of Page 3 to read "Plaintiff was not charged with a crime and was released." The Court will refer to the background in this Memorandum only when necessary to explain its rulings.
"The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). A judgment "may be altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration shows at least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion for summary 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). Moreover, a motion for reconsideration is not properly grounded on a request that a court rethink a decision already made. Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F. Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993); see also United States v. Jasin, 292 F. Supp. 2d 670, 676 (E.D. Pa. 2003) ("[P]arties are not free to relitigate issues which the court has already decided."). A motion for reconsideration "addresses only factual and legal matters that the Court may have overlooked." Glendon Energy, 836 F. Supp. at 1122 (internal quotations omitted).
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration under the third ground for reconsideration -- the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. In his Motion he has not identified a "clear error of .fact" that warrants reconsideration of the Memorandum and Order. He is correct that he was not issued a citation for loitering by Officer Corvi, and the Memorandum will be amended to reflect this correction. However, this correction of a single fact -- which was not necessary to the analysis in the Memorandum or the decision of the Court -- does not require reconsideration of the ruling.*fn2 Further, plaintiff's disagreement with the Court's legal analysis does not constitute a need to correct a "clear error of law" or "to prevent manifest injustice." In short, the Court rejects plaintiff's argument on key aspects of the law applicable to the case as stated in the Memorandum dated December 20, 2012.
Plaintiff is not entitled to file an interlocutory appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) provides that the Court may allow an interlocutory appeal of an order if the Court is "of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially ...