United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
RICHARD CAPUTO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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permission to cite to unpublished opinions without attaching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.
reasons that follow, Mr. Sloan's motions will be granted
in part and denied in part.
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.
Motion for Reconsideration
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.
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)).
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.”)).
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.
Motions for a Continuance
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 ...