United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
RICHARD CAPUTO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
April 4, 2018, the Court granted the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment based on Plaintiff's failure to
properly exhaust his available administrative remedies with
respect to his claim that various medical staff members at
USP-Canaan were deliberately indifferent to his ongoing
medical needs following the rupture of his Achilles tendon.
(ECF Nos. 41 and 42.) On May 1, 2018, Mr. Green filed a
motion for reconsideration asserting that: (1) he never
received a copy of Defendants' proposed statement of
material facts; and (2) the Bureau of Prisons'
administrative remedy program was unavailable to him as
defendants refused to process his BP-9 and “was given
a[n] Administrative Tort Claim Form” instead. (ECF No.
44.) Mr. Green never filed a brief in support of his motion
as required by Pa. M.D. Local Rule 7.5. Defendants filed a
brief in opposition to Mr. Green's motion. (ECF No. 45.)
reasons that follow, Mr. Green's motion for
reconsideration will be denied.
Standard of Review
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) gives a district court the
discretion to grant a party relief if a “final
judgment, order, or proceeding” was the product of
“mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1). The scope of a motion
for reconsideration is extremely limited. Blystone v.
Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 415 (3d Cir. 2011). “Such
motions are not to be used as an opportunity to relitigate
the case”. (Id.) (citing Howard Hess
Dental Labs, Inc., v. Dentsply Int'l Inc., 602 F.3d
237, 251 (3d Cir. 2010)).
prevail on a motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), a party must show: (1) an intervening
change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new
evidence that was previously unavailable; 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)). “New evidence”
for the purpose of this inquiry “does not refer to
evidence that a party ... submits to the court after an
adverse ruling. Rather, new evidence in this context means
evidence that a party could not earlier submit to the court
because that evidence was not previously available.”
Howard Hess Dental Labs. Inc., 602 F.3d at 252.
Mr. Green's Motion is Deemed Withdrawn
Green filed his motion for reconsideration on April 26, 2018.
(ECF No. 44.) Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5, Plaintiff had
fourteen days to file a brief in support of his motion. The
Court forwarded Mr. Green a copy of this district's
Standing Practice Order in pro se plaintiff cases
cautioning him that when a moving party does not file a brief
in support of a motion within the 14-day deadline, the
“party shall be deemed to have withdrawn the
motion.” (ECF No. 2.) Accordingly, because Mr. Green
never filed a brief in support of his motion for
reconsideration, the Court will deem the motion withdrawn.
Mr. Green's Motion for Reconsideration
even if the Court were to consider the arguments presented in
Mr. Green's motion, the motion would be denied.
1, 2018, Mr. Green filed a motion for reconsideration
asserting that: (1) he never received a copy of
Defendants' proposed statement of material facts; and (2)
the Bureau of Prisons' administrative remedy program was
unavailable to him as defendants refused to process his BP-9
and “was given a[n] Administrative Tort Claim
Form” instead. Of these arguments, neither demonstrates
an intervening change in law, the availability of previously
unavailable evidence, or a need to correct a clear error of
law or fact, and thus he is not entitled to relief.
Mr. Green's claim that he did not receive a copy of the
Defendants' Statement of Material Facts and thereby
prevented him from properly responding to their motion, the
Court finds this theory unsupported by the record. (ECF No.
44.) Mr. Green was on notice of the Defendants'
obligation to file a statement of material facts with their
motion for summary judgment per Local Rule 56.1, and aware
that Defendants relied on such a statement as referenced in
their April 2017 supporting brief and reply brief. (ECF No.
33, p. 3 and ECF No. 37, p. 2.) Moreover, the Defendants'
summary judgment brief also summarized the facts and
documents relied upon when advancing their affirmative
defense that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his medical claim.
(ECF No. 33., p. 7.) The Court has examined Mr. Green's
brief in opposition to Defendants' summary motion as well
as a sur-reply brief. (ECF Nos. 35 and 38.) At no time did
Mr. Green alert the Defendants, or the Court, that he did not
receive Defendants' Statement of Material Facts, or
supporting documents, referenced in their briefs. If Mr.
Green failed to receive a copy of them, Plaintiff did not
exercise due diligence and promptly alert the Defendants, or
the Court, of the issue. Based on the record before the
Court, Mr. Green's lack of diligence to protect his own
interests does not demonstrate good cause for justifying the
disturbance of the Court's granting of the
Defendants' summary judgment motion. Moreover, given Mr.
Green's failure to brief his ...