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.

Montalban v. Powel

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

January 14, 2020

JOSÉ MONTALBAN, Plaintiff
v.
MR. POWEL, et al., Defendants

          MEMORANDUM

          James M. Munley United States District Judge.

         Before the Court is Plaintiff Montalban's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 72) of the Court's January 15, 2019 Order (Doc. 68) granting defendants' motion for summary judgment. The motion is ripe for disposition.

         For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. Montalban's remaining motions will be dismissed as moot.

         I. Background

         José Montalban, a federal inmate formerly housed at Canaan United States Penitentiary (“USP Canaan”), filed a Bivens[1] action alleging he was subjected to excessive use of force and denied medical care following a December 28, 2012 assault by staff. Shortly thereafter, Montalban was transferred to the Lackawanna County Prison in Scranton, Pennsylvania to stand trial for assault of a corrections officer. At some point, the criminal court sought an opinion regarding Montalban's competency and he was transferred to the Metropolitan Correctional Center (“MCC”) in Chicago, Illinois. (Doc. 50-3.) Upon the completion of his criminal trial in July 2014, Montalban returned to USP Canaan. He claims that upon reception, Officer Schultz confiscated, lost or destroyed legal materials related to his criminal trial. On July 17, 2014, Montalban was transferred to USP Coleman I, in Florida.

         Montalban filed his Complaint on January 27, 2017, and an Amended Complaint on April 14, 2017. (Docs. 1 and 24). On November 16, 2017, Defendants filed a properly supported motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. (Doc. 44). In January 2018, Plaintiff filed over 250 pages of exhibits in support of his opposition brief (Doc. 50), and an additional 53-page response in February 2018 (Doc. 55). After Defendants' filed a reply brief (Doc. 58), Montalban filed an unauthorized sur reply brief including an additional 200 pages of exhibits. (Doc. 63). On May 9, 2018, Montalban filed additional “newly evidence, unavailable before” exhibits in opposition to Defendants' potentially dispositive motion. (Doc. 64). Montalban, however, did not file a response to Defendants' statement of facts as required by Pa. M.D. Local Rule 56.1.

         On January 15, 2019, the Court, relying on the record, granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment after determining Montalban's claims were time-barred. See Montalban v. Powel, No. 1:17CV212, 2019 WL 194372 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 15, 2019).

         On February 11, 2019, Montalban filed a 56-page motion for reconsideration of the Court's January 15, 2019 Order. (Doc. 72). Shortly thereafter, Montalban filed a Notice of Appeal. (Doc. 74).

         In the interim, Montalban filed two motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Docs. 77 and 80), a motion to clarify a recent filing (Doc. 81), several motions to file additional exhibits/evidence in support of his motion for reconsideration (Doc. 83, 85, 86, 89, 93, 95 and 97), and a request for a status report (Doc. 98).

         II. Standard of Review

         A motion for reconsideration may be granted if the movant establishes: (1) there has been an intervening change in controlling law; (2) new evidence has become available since the court decided the motion; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Schumann v. Astrazeneca Pharm., L.P., 769 F.3d 837, 848-49 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)). A motion for reconsideration may not be used to relitigate issues or present arguments that could have been raised earlier but were not. Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 416 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Howard Hess Dental Lab., Inc. v. Dentasply Int'l, Inc., 602 F.3d 237, 251 (3d Cir. 2010)).

         III. Discussion

         A. Motion for Reconsideration

         Montalban presents two arguments in his motion for reconsideration. First, he argues the discovery of “new evidence” demonstrating prison officials' interference in his ability to utilize the prison's administrative remedy process. Second, he asserts the Court erred by granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment after he ...


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.