United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
PARADISE BAXTER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Relevant Procedural History
before this Court is Plaintiff's motion to amend
judgment. ECF No. 38. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this
Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order granting summary
judgment in favor of Defendant. ECF No. 36; ECF No. 37.
an inmate currently incarcerated at the State Correctional
Institution at Forest in Marienville, Pennsylvania, initiated
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Named as the sole Defendant is Jamie Ferdarko, a nurse at the
prison, who Plaintiff alleges was deliberately indifferent to
his serious medical condition, in violation of the Eighth
Opinion and Order dated January 4, 2017, this Court granted
summary judgment in favor of Defendant based upon
Plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative
remedies in accordance with the requirements of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act.
Standard of Review
for reconsideration are not explicitly recognized by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. United States v.
Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F.Supp.2d 339, 345 (D.N.J.
1999). However, a motion for reconsideration may be treated
as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule
59(e) or as a motion for relief from judgment under Federal
Rule 60(b). Id. See also Jones v. Pittsburgh
Nat'l Corp., 899 F.2d 1350, 1352 (3d Cir. 1990)
(recognizing that a motion for reconsideration is usually the
“functional equivalent” of a motion to alter or
amend judgment under Rule 59(e)).
federal courts have a strong interest in finality of
judgments, '” “[m]otions for reconsideration
under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are
granted sparingly.” Jacobs v. Bayha, 2011 WL
1044638, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 18, 2011) quoting
Continental Cas. Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc., 884
F.Supp. 937, 943 (E.D.Pa.1995). Furthermore, Rule 60(b)(6)
provides “extraordinary relief” that is only
available in “exceptional circumstances.”
Coltec Indus., Inc. v. Hobgood, 280 F.3d 262, 273
(3d Cir. 2002).
moving party bears a heavy burden to demonstrate that an
order should be reconsidered and the Court will only grant
such a motion 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. Lazardis v.
Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) quoting
Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 678 (3d Cir. 1999).
Plaintiff's motion is based on the third avenue:
“the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to
prevent a manifest injustice.” Defendant's burden
is especially heavy in this regard. “[A] mere
disagreement with the court does not translate into a clear
error of law.” Mpala v. Smith, 2007 WL 136750,
at *2 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2007).
seeks reconsideration of the decision granting
Defendant's motion for summary judgment claiming that the
Court erred in its analysis. Plaintiff disagrees with this
Court's exhaustion analysis. Such a disagreement does not
warrant the granting of the motion to amend judgment under
either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). See In re Avandia
Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability
Litig., 2011 WL 4945713, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 14, 2011)
(reconsideration is not permitted to reargue matters the
court already resolved or relitigate points of disagreement
between the court and the moving party); Kennedy Indus.,
Inc. v. Aparo, 2006 WL 1892685, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Jul.6,
2006) (a litigant who “fails in its first attempt to
persuade a court to adopt its position may not use a motion
for reconsideration either to attempt a new approach or
correct mistakes it made in its previous one.”);
Odgen v. Keystone Residence, 226 F.Supp.2d 588, 606
(M.D. Pa. 2002) (“A motion for reconsideration is not
to be sued as a means to reargue matters already argued and
disposed of or as an attempt to relitigate a point of
disagreement between the Court and the litigant.”).
appropriate Order follows.
HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to amend judgment