United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
M. Munley United States District Judge.
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.
reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration. Montalban's remaining motions
will be dismissed as moot.
Montalban, a federal inmate formerly housed at Canaan United
States Penitentiary (“USP Canaan”), filed a
Bivens 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.
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.
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,
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).
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).
Standard of Review
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)).
Motion for Reconsideration
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