October 30, 2013
EDWARD LEON BOONE, Plaintiff,
C. O. DAUGHTERY, DR. DASCANI, LORI KWISNEK, PATRICIA MEISTER, DR. MOLLURA, DEBBIE YOTHERS, C. O. SHEETZ, KEN SANDERS AND W. ALLAMON, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
CYNTHIA REED EDDY, Magistrate Judge.
On October 15, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and granted Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's federal claims. The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims of negligence and breach of confidentiality and dismissed those claims without prejudice (See Memorandum Opinion and Order, ECF No. 118.) Presently pending is the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 120).
Standard of Review
A motion for reconsideration may be filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Although motions for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) serve similar functions, each has a particular purpose. United States v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282, 28 (3d Cir. 2003). For instance, "Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances including fraud, mistake, and newly discovered evidence." Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528 (2005). A motion filed pursuant to Rule 60(b) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court guided by accepted legal principles applied in light of all relevant circumstances, Pierce v. Assoc. Inc. v. Nemours Found., 865 F.2d 530, 548 (3d Cir. 1988), but may be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. Moolenaar v. Gov't of Virgin Islands, 822 F.2d 1342, 1346 (3d Cir. 1987).
In contrast, Rule 59(e) is "a device to relitigate the original issue decided by the district court, and [it is] used to allege legal error." Fiorelli, 337 F.3d at 288. The moving party must show one of the following in order to prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that 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 v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). A motion for reconsideration is not appropriate to reargue issues that he court has already considered and decided.
Plaintiff has not identified the authority by which he is seeking reconsideration. However, because he filed the instant motion within twenty-eight days after the entry of judgment,  the Court will treat the motion as filed pursuant to Rule 59(e). See, e.g., Holsworth v. Berg, 322 F.Appx. 143, 146 (3d Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff continues to advance the same arguments that he made in response to the Motions for Summary Judgment. Said arguments were previously given due consideration, but not credited by this Court. Motions for reconsideration are not designed to provide litigants with a second bite at the apple. Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220, 1231 (3d Cir. 1995).
Fatal to the pending motion, nothing new has been supplemented to the record by the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment.
It is undeniable that Plaintiff is frustrated by the medical treatment he received while incarcerated at SCI-Greensburg and the Court is sympathetic to his frustration. However, the Court finds that the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment is without merit and will be denied.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 30th day of October, 2013, in accordance with the foregoing Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment is DENIED.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to file a notice of appeal as provided by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.