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.

Sloan v. Wertz

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

September 13, 2017

AARON SLOAN, Plaintiff
v.
CO WERTZ, et al., Defendants

          MEMORANDUM

          A. RICHARD CAPUTO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. Introduction

         Presently before the Court are four motions filed by Mr. Sloan. The first seeks reconsideration of several of this Court's prior orders: (1) the August 11, 2016 Order (ECF No. 95) granting Defendants' partial summary judgment; (2) the September 8, 2016 Order denying his motion for a continuance (ECF No. 98); and (3) the October 28, 2016 Order denying his first motion for reconsideration of the Court's order granting Defendants' partial motion for summary judgment due to his failure to file a supporting brief (ECF No. 106). See ECF No. 108. Mr. Sloan's second and third motions seek a continuance in this matter based on his lack of access to adequate legal research opportunities and sufficient blank paper. (ECF Nos. 110 and 112.) Mr. Sloan's fourth motion seeks, inter alia, to be relieved of the obligation to file single-sided documents and permission to cite to unpublished opinions without attaching copies of the opinion to his filings.

         For the reasons that follow, Mr. Sloan's motions will be granted in part and denied in part.

         II. Background

         On October 1, 2012, Aaron Sloan, an inmate presently housed at SCI-Greene, filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various violations of his constitutional rights while housed at SCI-Camp Hill. On August 11, 2016, the Court entered partial summary judgment in favor of all Defendants except Nurse McGinnis. (ECF Nos. 94 - 95.) Mr. Sloan was directed to file an amended complaint as to his claims against Nurse McGinnis. Mr. Sloan filed his Amended Complaint against Nurse McGinnis on September 22, 2016. (ECF No. 101). Defendant McGinnis moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 109.) Mr. Sloan has not filed a brief in opposition to Defendant McGinnis' motion.

         III. Discussion

         1. Motion for Reconsideration

         Mr. Sloan asks the Court to reconsider various rulings, all of which are interlocutory in nature. See Foulk v. Donjon Marine Co., 144 F.3d 242, 255 (3d Cir. 1998). The standard of review for reconsideration of an interlocutory order is different than the standard of review of reconsideration of a final order or judgment.

         A motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final order, which courts generally interpret as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or for relief from a final judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 60(b), requires the showing of one of three grounds: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court [issued the underlying order]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Astrazeneca v. Pharma. L.P. 769 F.3d 837, 848 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)).

         Reconsideration of an interlocutory order, however, is more properly considered pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), and is appropriate whenever justice so requires. See State Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Cty of Camden, 824 F.3d 399, 406, & n. 14 (3d Cir. 2016) (citing United States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d 600, 605 (3d Cir. 1973) (“[S]o long as the district court has jurisdiction over the case, it possess inherent power over interlocutory orders, and can reconsider them when it is consonant with justice to do so.”)).

         In this case Mr. Sloan did not file a brief in support of his motion for relief. He cites no facts or rationale to support his motion. Accordingly, the Court will deny his motion for relief (ECF No. 108) without prejudice. Mr. Sloan will not be prejudice by this decision as the action is still pending.

         2. Motions for a Continuance

         In both of Mr. Sloan's motions for a continuance he argues that he is unable to proceed in this action because he has been denied adequate access to legal research materials and sufficient paper to file briefs in support of his pending motions. (ECF Nos. 110 and 112.) Mr. Sloan argues that he has labored under ...


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.