Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07—cv—00378-JJF Document 13 Filed 04/18/2008 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
WILLIAM BOYD, :
Plaintiff, ;
v. Z Civil Action No. 07-378-JJF
THEODORE NANNAS, ;
Defendant. E
MEMORANDUM ORDER
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff William Boyd (“Plaintiff"), filed suit this
lawsuit against Defendant Theodore Nannas (“Defendant"). (D.I.
2.) Plaintiff proceeds prg sg and was granted leave to proceed
in fgrmg pauperis. On July 30, 2007, the Court dismissed the
case as frivolous, for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, and for want of jurisdiction. (D.I. 6, 7.) On
September 24, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Notice Of Appeal of the
dismissal Order. (D.I. 7.) On January 14, 2008, some six months
after the case was dismissed, and after he filed an appeal,
Plaintiff filed the pending Motion For Reconsideration of the
dismissal Order. (D.I. 12.)
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provides that a party
may move to amend or alter a judgment within ten days after entry

Case 1 :07—cv—00378-JJF Document 13 Filed 04/18/2008 Page 2 of 4
thereof.1 A motion under Rule 59(e) is a device to relitigate
the original issue decided by the District Court, and used to
allege legal error. United States v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282, 288
(3d Cir. 2003). Although Rule 59 does not specifically mention a
motion for reconsideration, such a motion is regarded as “the
functional equivalent of a Rule 59 motion.” Federal Kemper Ins.
Co. v. Rauscher, 807 F.2d 345, 348 (3d Cir. 1986).
The standard for obtaining relief under Rule 59(e) is
difficult for Plaintiff to meet. 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). A motion for reconsideration
may be granted if the moving party shows: (1) an intervening
change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new
evidence that was not available when the court issued its order;
or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to
prevent manifest injustice. Max's Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176
F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
A motion for reconsideration is not properly grounded on a
request that a court rethink a decision already made. Sgg
Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F. Supp. 1109, 1122
1The Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware provide
that “if a party chooses to file a motion for reargument, said
motion shall be filed within 10 days after the Court issues its
opinion or decision.” D. Del. LR 7.1.5.
2

`
Case 1 :07—cv—00378-JJF Document 13 Filed 04/18/2008 Page 3 of 4
(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.
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff's Complaint did not allege facts that raised a
federal question and did not contain allegations of diversity of
citizenship. The Court noted that, perhaps, Plaintiff might have
a claim under state law. Hence, the Complaint was dismissed for
want of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. (D.I. 5.) In Plaintiff's Motion For
Reconsideration, he now claims that Defendant violated the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2. The Sherman Act claim was not
alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint, and the Civil Cover Sheet made
no reference to this statute.
Initially, the Court notes that Plaintiff's Motion was not
timely filed. For the reason alone, the Court will deny the
3

1
Case 1 :07—cv—00378-JJF Document 13 Filed 04/18/2008 Page 4 of 4
Motion. Even if the Motion had been timely filed, Plaintiff does
not meet the standard for reconsideration. The Sherman Act claim
was not pled in the original Complaint nor was there a hint that
Plaintiff meant to make such a claim. Indeed, the Court did not
err in dismissing Plaintiff’s original Complaint as it failed to
state a cognizable claim for relief. Moreover, Plaintiff never
sought to amend his complaint and he may not use a motion for
reconsideration as a means for amendment. The purpose of a
motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law
or fact or to present newly discovered evidence and it may not be
used as a means to argue new issues that were inexcusably not
presented in the original Complaint. Plaintiff provides no valid
reason for the Court to reconsider its July 30, 2007 ruling and,
therefore, his motion will be denied.
THEREFORE, at Wilmington this _ji§ day of April, 2008, IT IS
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (D.I. 12) is
DENIED.
ED S A S DISTRI JUDGE
4