Free Order (PLRA) Reinstating Filing Fee - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00342-SLR Document 22 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ARSON I. GIBBS, SR., )
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Civil Action No. 07-342-SLR
GOVERNOR RUTH ANN MINNER, g
et al., )
>
Defendants. )
O R D E R
At Wilmington this Klhday of November, 2007, having considered plaintiffs
pending motions;
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration, with supplement, is denied. (D.|. 13,
14) 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 Cafe v. Ouinteros, 176
F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
2. A motion for reconsideration is not properly grounded on a request that a
court rethink a decision already made. g Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of
Glendon, 836 F. Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993). Motions for reargument or

Case 1:07-cv-00342-SLR Document 22 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 2 of 4
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); ge_a@ D. Del. LR 7.1.5.
3. On July 19, 2007, the court conducted an initial screening of plaintiffs
complaint and dismissed it on the bases that plaintiffs claims are barred by the
applicable limitation period and defendants are entitled to legislative immunity. (D.|. 12)
The court also denied plaintiffs motion to amend on the basis that the amendment
advanced a claim that was frivolous and legally insufficient on its face. (g) Plaintiff
argues that the court’s memorandum order is "contrary to established law" and is
"absoIutely wrong." (D.I. 13, ‘|j‘|j 2, 4) He also argues that the court abused its
discretion in denying his motion to amend. (gl; at ‘|j 10) Plaintiff contends that the court
is "overwheImingly partial, prejudicial and discriminatory and serves only to shield the
defendants from civil liability and to cloak a paramount violation ofthe constitution." (Q
at 6)
4. Essentially, plaintiff disagrees with the court’s order dismissing his complaint
without prejudice for failure to state a claim, as frivolous, and by reason of defendants’
immunity. The court has thoroughly reviewed the complaint and the July 19, 2007
memorandum order. (D.l. 12) There is no need to correct a clear error of law or fact or
-2-

Case 1:07-cv-00342-SLB Document 22 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 3 of 4
to prevent manifest injustice. Moreover, plaintiff has not demonstrated any of the
grounds necessary to warrant reconsideration.
5. Plaintiffs motion to amend/correct is denied. (D.l. 15) Plaintiff once again
moves to amend his complaint to add fourjudicial officers. The court ruled on this issue
in its July 19, 2007 memorandum order. (D.|. 12) Amendment is futile inasmuch as
the proposed amendment does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. gg
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Oran v. Stafford, 226 F.3d 275, 291 (3d Cir.
2000); In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Lltig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir. 1997);
Harrison Beverage Co. v. Dribeck Importers, Inc., 133 F.R.D. 463, 468 (D.N.J. 1990).
6. Plaintiffs expedited motion forjudicial notice of adjudicatlve facts and for a
three judge court (D.|. 16) is denied.
7. Plaintiffs second motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of filing
fees (D.l. 18) is denied. Plaintiff asks to be relieved of the requisites of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(1). Plaintiff is statutorily required to make payments toward his tiling fee.
8. Plaintiffs $350.00 filing fee is reinstated. (S5; D.I. 12,1] 15) The court
previously determined that plaintiff has no assets and no means to pay the initial partial
filing fee. Nevertheless, any money plaintiff later receives will be collected in the
following manner. Plaintiff is required to make monthly payments of 20 percent (20%)
of the preceding month’s income credited to his prison trust account and absent further
order of the court, the warden or other appropriate official at the Delaware Correctional
Center, or at any prison at which plaintiff is or may be incarcerated, shall forward
payments from his account to the clerk ofthe court each time the amount in the
-3-

Case 1:07-cv-00342-SLR Document 22 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 4 of 4
account exceeds $10.00 until the liling fee is paid. The clerk of the court is directed to
send a copy of this order to the appropriate prison business office.
gift .#·
LINITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-