United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
RICARDO T. LARIOS, Plaintiff
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants
D. MARIANI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Ricardo Larios ("Larios"), an inmate formerly
confined at the Metropolitan Detention Center, Brooklyn, New
York, filed a Bivens and Federal Tort Claims Act
("FTCA") complaint on August 11, 2014. (Doc. 1).
Larios subsequently filed an amended complaint (Doc. 27),
wherein he named the following Defendants: the United States
of America, Ellen Mace-Leibson, Michael Borecky, Robert
Beaudouin, R. Newland, L.T. Rarick, Jeremy Simonson, David
Steffan, and James Hepner. Larios alleged that Defendants
were negligent in assigning him to a top bunk, failed to
provide medical treatment for injuries he sustained when he
fell from the top bunk, and retaliated against him for filing
an administrative tort claim. (Id.). Previously by
Memorandum and Order dated September 20, 2016, the Court
granted Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) and for summary judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and closed
the case. (Docs. 56, 57).
before the Court is Larios's motion (Doc. 59) for
reconsideration of this Court's September 20, 2016 Order.
For the reasons set forth below, the motion for
reconsideration will be denied.
Motion for Reconsideration Standard of Review
motion for reconsideration is a device of limited utility. It
may be used only to seek remediation for manifest errors of
law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence which, if
discovered previously, might have affected the court's
decision. Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906
(3d Cir. 1985), cert, denied, 476 U.S. 1171 (1986).
Accordingly, a party seeking reconsideration must demonstrate
at least one of the following grounds prior to the court
altering, or amending, a standing judgment: (1) an
intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence that was not available when the
court granted the motion; or (3) the need to correct a clear
error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.
Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quineros, 176 F.3d 669,
677 (3d Cir. 1999), citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA
Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995).
motion for reconsideration is appropriate in instances where
the court has"... misunderstood a party, or has made a
decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the
Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning
but of apprehension." Rohrbach v. AT&T Nassau
Metals Corp., 902 F.Supp. 523, 527 (M.D. Pa. 1995),
vacated in part on other grounds on reconsideration
915 F.Supp. 712 (M.D. Pa. 1996), quoting Above
the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D.
99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983). It may not be used as a means to
reargue unsuccessful theories, or argue new facts or issues
that were not presented to the court in the context of the
matter previously decided. Drysdale v. Woerth, 153
F.Supp.2d 678, 682 (E.D. Pa. 2001). "Because federal
courts have a strong interest in the finality of judgments,
motions for reconsideration should be granted
sparingly." Continental Casualty Co. v. Diversified
Indus. Inc., 884 F.Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995).
instant motion for reconsideration, Larios states that he
relied on the assistance of a jailhouse lawyer when
litigating this action. (Doc. 59). He claims that the
jailhouse lawyer provided inadequate assistance, posed as an
attorney, and lied about having a license to practice law.
(Id.). Larios asserts that he relied on the
"deficient" work of the jailhouse lawyer, which
ultimately resulted in dismissal of this action,
(id. at p. 5). Larios further complains that the
Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") did not inform him of
this fellow inmate's lie, and that the BOP failed to
protect him from this "scam artist Q."
(Id. at p. 1). Larios attempts to blame the BOP for
his "barren" response to Defendants' motion for
summary judgment. (Id. at p. 2).
argue that Larios' "mistake" of hiring a
jailhouse attorney, and the "newly discovered
evidence" that this individual is a "scam artist,
" do not warrant reconsideration of the Court's
dismissal of this case. (Doc. 61, p. 4). The Court agrees. In
order to maintain a proper motion for reconsideration, Larios
must demonstrate reliance on one of three major grounds,
including, "(1) an intervening change in controlling
law; (2) the availability of new evidence [not available
previously]; [or], (3) the need to correct clear error [of
law] or prevent manifest injustice." North River
Ins. Co., 52 F.3d at 1218. Larios fails to rely on any
of these three major grounds and, instead, simply disagrees
with the Court's decision and questions the assistance he
received from a fellow inmate while pursuing this lawsuit.
The Court finds that Larios fails to demonstrate any
circumstances necessary to warrant reconsideration of this
Court's September 20, 2016 Order.
motion for reconsideration, Larios fails to advance an
intervening change in controlling law, to present newly found
evidence, or to establish that a clear error of law or fact
exists. Nor does he establish that the Court came to its
conclusions by way of some gross misunderstanding of the
facts or law of this case. Consequently, Larios has failed to
demonstrate a need to reconsider the September 20, 2016
Memorandum and Order. That Order is not troubled by manifest
errors of law or fact and Larios has not presented ...