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.

Rice v. Warden FCI McKean

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

June 27, 2019

TOMMY RICE, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN FCI MCKEAN, Respondent.

          Kane Judge.

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          Martin C. Carlson United States Magistrate Judge.

         I. Statement of Facts and of the Case

         This case involved a federal habeas corpus petition filed by the petitioner, Tommy Rice, which invited the court to examine the results of a prison disciplinary hearing that led to the forfeiture of good time and other privileges. (Doc. 1.) Briefly, the pertinent facts in this case were as follows: On April 3, 2017, at FCI McKean following a cell search of Rice's wall locker, Correctional Officer Fadenholz discovered some suspected contraband, two capsules inside a pill bottle containing a green leafy substance inside both capsules. (Doc. 10, Ex. 1 Declaration of Matthew Lavelle ¶ 3, Attach. A, Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO) Report 2970366 at 1, 4.) Fadenholz secured the cell and took the pill bottle and the suspicious two capsules to his office. (Id. at 2, 4.) While the correctional officer was attempting to notify his superiors, Rice entered Fadenholz's office complaining that he had to use the bathroom and needed into his cell. (Id.) Officer Fadenholz refused Rice's request to enter his cell and sent him away from his office. However, undeterred Rice returned complaining again that he needed access to his cell and his medicine. (Id.) According to the correctional officer's account, as he complained Rice kept moving closer to the desk where the suspicious capsules retrieved by the officer lay. Officer Fadenholz ordered Rice to “step away from my desk and move back to the doorway, ” but according to the officer Rice refused the order and instead reached over the computer monitor and grabbed the 2 capsules off the desk. (Id.) Officer Fadenholz then ordered Rice to “drop the pills and stop, ” but Rice refused to obey and fled, running down the range. (Id.) At that time, Fadenholz immediately locked his office door and called for assistance. (Id.) Officer Fadenholz's account was corroborated in part by prison surveillance videos of the housing unit range. A review of these videos revealed Rice entering the correctional officer's office, then leaving quickly and running down the range. Further video surveillance footage showed Rice dropping a small object outside a cell where another inmate was seen picking up the object and placing it under a stairwell. (Doc. 10-1, Attach A at 9.)

         In the wake of this incident Officer Fadenholz issued an Incident Report charging Rice with violations of (Code 115), Disposing of an Item During a Search, and, violation of (Code 307), Refusing an Order. (Id. at 4.) On April 26, 2017, the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) held a hearing to address the incident report. (Id., Ex. 1, Attach. A at 1.) During the hearing, the DHO confirmed that Rice understood his rights and had received advanced written notice of the charges against him. The DHO also confirmed that Rice had requested a staff representative, Dr. Walt, who was assisting the inmate. (Id.) The DHO hearing record further indicated that Rice had no documentary evidence to present. While Rice requested a witness at this hearing, a paramedic named Fraser, Paramedic Fraser was unavailable and this request was denied. However, the DHO later contacted Fraser, who simply reported that he had been notified of this April 3 incident, but had not been required to respond to the scene. (Id.) Rice also testified at the DHO hearing, stating that the incident report was not true and that he never took anything off the officer's desk. (Id. at 1.) According to Rice, he was experiencing a medical emergency and needed to use the bathroom. (Id.) In Rice's narrative, he went into the Fadenholz's office two different times to ask him to let him back into his cell so he could use the bathroom. (Id.) When the correctional officer refused to allow him access to the cell, Rice stated that left the office without seizing any suspected contraband and simply jogged down the range to relieve the pressure of having to use the bathroom. (Id.) Rice further insisted that he never dropped any pills on the range, and alleged that the investigation of the inmate who allegedly picked up the pills did not result in any citation of that prisoner. (Id.)

         Following this hearing the DHO found that Rice had committed the prohibited act of obstruction of a search. In reaching this result the DHO considered the reporting officer's written statement, the video tape recording of the incident, as well as Rice's statements. (Id.) The DHO noted that the officer's report was corroborated by the video evidence and had greater credence than Rice's account of these events. (Id.) Therefore, based upon the greater weight of the evidence, the DHO found that Rice had committed the prohibited act of (Code 115), Disposing of an Item During a Search, and sanctioned Rice by disallowing 41 days of Rice's good conduct time. (Id. at 3.) A copy of the DHO report was delivered then to Rice on May 5, 2017. (Id.)

         It was against this factual backdrop that Rice filed the instant federal habeas corpus petition. Along with his petition, Rice also filed a motion seeking discovery in the habeas corpus proceeding. (Doc. 2.) We denied Rice's request for discovery, (Doc. 11), and finding that Rice was afforded the full panoply of procedural protections and that there was sufficient evidence to support the prison's finding of misconduct, we recommended that this petition be denied. (Doc. 13.) Rice lodged no objection to this recommendation, which was adopted by the district court. (Doc. 14.) However, Rice now files a series of motions, including a second motion for further discovery which seek to re-open Rice's demands for factual discovery. (Doc. 16.) In essence, Rice's motion for discovery requests that we reconsider its prior discovery ruling in a case that has now been resolved on its merits.

         For the reasons set forth below, we will decline this invitation to reconsider our prior discovery ruling..

         II. Discussion

         A. Rice's Motion to Reconsider Discovery Will Be Denied.

         The legal standards that govern motions to reconsider are both clear, and clearly compelling. "The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Typically such a motion should only be granted in three, narrowly defined circumstances, where there is either: "(1) [an] intervening change in controlling law, (2) availability of new evidence not previously available, or (3) need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice". Dodge v. Susquehanna Univ., 796 F.Supp. 829, 830 (M.D. Pa. 1992). As the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has aptly observed:

“The purpose of a motion for reconsideration ... is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Max's Seafood Café, 176 F.3d at 677 (quoting Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985)). “Accordingly, a judgment may be altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration shows at least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Id. (citation omitted). Howard Hess Dental Laboratories Inc. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 602 F.3d 237, 251 (3d Cir. 2010).

         Thus, it is well-settled that a mere disagreement with the court does not translate into the type of clear error of law which justifies reconsideration of a ruling. Dodge, 796 F.Supp. at 830. Furthermore, "[b]ecause 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). Moreover, it is evident that a motion for reconsideration is not a tool to re-litigate and reargue issues which have already been considered and disposed of by the court. Dodge, 796 F.Supp. at 830. Rather, such a motion is appropriate only where the court has misunderstood a party or where there has been a significant change in law or facts since the court originally ruled on that issue. See Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983).

         In this case we have previously concluded that habeas petitioners have no absolute right to make discovery demands upon respondents. Rather, decisions on discovery requests rest in the sound discretion of the court. As ...


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.