Free Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :06-cv-00001-GIVIS Document 70 Filed 04/1 1/2007 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JAMES W. RILEY, )
Plaintiff, )
v. j C.A. N0. 06-Ol-GMS
STANLEY TAYLOR, et al., g
)
MEMORANDUM ORDER
I. Introduction
The plaintiff, James W. Riley ("Riley"), is an inmate housed at the Delaware Correctional
Center ("DCC"). Riley filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (i.e., rectal dysfunction, need for eyeglasses,
orthopedic footwear, skin infection). (D.I. 2.) On December 5, 2006, the court granted in part
and denied in part a motion to dismiss filed by defendant Medical Assistant Malaney
("Malaney"); dismissed Correctional Medical Services, Inc. ("CMS") as a defendant, but gave
Riley leave to amend his complaint as to the allegations raised against it; denied Riley’s motion
for summary judgment; granted summary judgment to defendant Commissioner Stanley Taylor,
Warden Thomas Carroll, and Deputy Warden David Pierce on the claims brought against them in
their official capacities; and dismissed a skin care medical needs claim. (D.I. 49.) Now before
the court is Riley’s motion to alter the judgment and for reconsideration of the court’s December
5, 2006 memorandum and order. (D.I. 50.)
II. Standard of Review
Riley does not indicate if he moves for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or

Case 1:06-cv—00001-Gl\/IS Document 70 Filed 04/11/2007 Page 2 of 4
60(b). Rule 60(b) motions and motions for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) serve a
similar function, but each has a distinct purpose. See United States v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282, 288
(3d Cir. 2003). Rule 60(b) lists several grounds for reconsideration, and those grounds include
"mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." Rule 59(e), "is a device to relitigate the
original issue decided by the district court, and [it is] used to allege legal error." Id (intemal
quotation marks omitted). In reviewing the motion it is clear that Riley attempts to relitigate the
issues decided in the order, and therefore, the court will construe the motion as one under Rule
59(e).
The standard for obtaining relief under Rule 59(e) is difficult for Riley 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 Caje 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. See Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough ofGlendon, 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."
Bramb/es 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
2

Case 1:06-cv—00001-G|\/IS Document 70 Filed 04/11/2007 Page 3 of 4
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
Riley argues that CMS mislead the court into believing that Riley did not sufficiently
allege a cause of action against it. He argues that the court was incorrect in stating that he did not
respond to that portion of CMS’ motion to dismiss addressing the issue of respondeat superior.
Riley concludes that "therefore this court must now rule that plaintiff need not amend his
complaint against CMS and CMS’ motion to dismiss is reconsidered and thereafter hereby is
denied." (D.I. 50.)
The court notes that on January 4, 2007, Riley filed an amended complaint against the
defendants CMS and First Correctional Medical. Therefore, the court will deny as moot the
motion for reconsideration as to the CMS dismissal and amendment issue.
Riley also seeks consideration of the dismissal of his skin care claim. He refers to
newspaper articles to support his position that the claim should not have been dismissed. It is
evident that Riley seeks to have the court rethink its decision to dismiss the skin care claim. As
discussed in the court’s December 5, 2006 memorandum, as to the skin care claim, the complaint
fails to state an Eighth Amendment medical needs claim. Riley has not demonstrated any of the
grounds necessary to warrant reconsideration of its dismissal and, therefore, the motion will be
denied.
IV. Conclusion
‘f lr
NOW THEREFORE, at Wilmington this Q day of | 0 l , 2007, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to alter the judgment and for reconsideration of the
3

Case 1:06-cv—00001-G|\/IS Document 70 Filed 04/11/2007 Page 4 of 4
court’s December 5, 2006 memorandum and order (D.I. 50 is DENIED.
L IT D T TES DIST CT E
F I L E D
APH 1 1 .i·.;‘1.‘3Z»’
¤%?¤%?B“é%LE§’#2§E
4