United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Troy Adam Shade, an inmate at SCI - Retreat in Hunlock Creek,
Pennsylvania, filed this civil action on February 14, 2019
against Judge Karoline Mehalchick. (D.I. 1). On May 23, 2018,
the Court entered an order for Plaintiff to sign and return
an authorization form so that the agency having custody of
him could forward all filing fee payments as required by 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) to the Clerk of Court. (D.I. 7).
Plaintiff was given thirty days from the date the order was
sent to submit the authorization form and advised the case
would be dismissed for his failure to do so. (Id.).
After Plaintiff failed to file the authorization, an order
was entered on July 9, 2019 dismissing the case. (D.I. 8).
Plaintiff filed an objection to dismissal of the complaint,
construed as a motion for reconsideration. (D.I. 9).
purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to "correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel.
Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677
(3d Cir. 1999). "A proper Rule 59(e) motion . . . must
rely on one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3)
the need to correct clear error of law or prevent manifest
injustice." Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666,
669 (3d Cir. 2010). A motion for reconsideration is not
properly grounded on a request that a court rethink a
decision already made. See Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough
of Glendon, 836 F. Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993).
Motions for reargument or reconsideration may not be used
"as a means to argue new facts or issues that
inexcusably were not presented to the court in the matter
previously decided." Brambles USA, Inc. v.
Blocker, 735 F. Supp. 1239, 1240 (D. Del. 1990).
Reargument, however, may be appropriate where "the Court
has patently 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." Brambles USA, 735 F. Supp. at
1241 (D. Del. 1990) (citations omitted); See also D.
Del. LR 7.1.5.
filed this action against Judge Mehalchick alleging that the
"acts and omissions and her statements" in reports
and recommendations in Shade v. Pennsylvania Dep't of
Corr., Civ. No. 16-01635 (W.D. Pa.), are "evidence
that she is "willfully acting with wanton malice and
with reckless intent actually defending the Pennsylvania
("DOC") and its state and non-state employees acts
and omissions." (D.I. 9 at 3). The Complaint also
alleges that Judge Mehalchick "willfully engaged in
judicial misconduct and is willfully acting with judicial
bias and legal prejudice" against him. (Id. at
Mehalchick is a federal defendant. (D.I. 1). Where a litigant
sues federal actors for damages on constitutional grounds,
the claim is governed by Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 389
(1971). A Bivens action is "a judicially
created remedy allowing individuals to seek damages for
unconstitutional conduct by federal officials" and is
federal tort counterpart to the remedy created by 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, applied to federal officers. Banks v.
Roberts, 251 F. App'x 774, 775 (3d Cir. 2007). When
the Court entered the dismissal order, it mistakenly referred
to Plaintiffs claim as a "civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983" rather than a Bivens
civil rights action. (D.I. 8).
argues that his case is not a § 1983 action but is an
action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 351 and
jurisdiction lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 pursuant to a
federal question. While not clear, Plaintiff appears to argue
his action does not fall under the filing fee requirements of
the Prison Litigation Reform Act. (D.I. 8 at ¶¶ 10,
351 refers to complaints that allege a judge has engaged in
conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious
administration of the business or the courts. See 28
U.S.C. § 351(a). To the extent Plaintiff seeks to file a
judicial complaint, he has filed it in the wrong court. Under
§ 351(a) a judicial complaint is commenced by filing it
with the clerk of the court of appeals for the circuit, not
with the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 351(a).
§ 1915(b)(1), if a prisoner brings a civil action in
forma pauperis, the prisoner is required to pay the full
amount of a filing fee. In addition the court must assess
and, when funds exist, collect, as a partial payment of any
court fees required by law, an initial partial filing fee of
20 percent of the greater of the average monthly deposits to
the prisoner's account, or the average monthly balance in
the prisoner's account for the 6-month period immediately
preceding the filing of the complaint.
commenced this action and he is required to pay the filing
fee. Therefore, his motion for reconsideration will be
denied. Plaintiff will be given additional time to submit his
above reasons, the Court will deny the motion for
reconsideration. (D.I. 9).
appropriate order ...