Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00514-SLR Document 39 Filed 11/19/2007 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DAVID W. RUSH, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civ. Action No. 07-514-SLR
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS, g
et al., )
Defendants. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this lwrday of November, 2007, having reviewed plaintiffs motion
for relief from judgment and supplement, which the court construes as a motion for
reconsideration, IT IS ORDERED that the motion (D.l. 32) is denied for the reasons
that follow:
1. Background. Plaintiff, who appears pro se, filed this civil rights case
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
On October 16, 2007, the court denied plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining
order/preliminary injunction for immediate medical treatment and care. (D.l. 25)
Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of that order. (D.I. 32) Defendant Correctional
Medical Services ("CMS") opposes the motion.
2. Standard of Review. 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.
, 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)

Case 1:07-cv-00514-SLB Document 39 Filed 11/19/2007 Page 2 of 3
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. Quinteros, 176 F .3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
3. 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 of
Glendon, 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."
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); _S_gg_a§_q D. Del. LR 7.1.5.
4. Discussion. Plaintiff asks the court to reconsider its decision denying him
injunctive relief. He contends the court’s conclusions are in error, not supported by the
factual record, are based on a misapprehension of facts as manipulated by CMS, and
failed to consider his reply and exhibits in any meaningful and fair manner. Essentially,
plaintiff disagrees with the court’s October 16, 2007 order. The court has thoroughly
reviewed all filings relevant to plaintiffs motion seeking injunctive and finds that there is
no need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Moreover,
plaintiff has not demonstrated any of the grounds necessary to warrant reconsideration.
5. Even though the court will deny plaintiffs motion for reconsideration, it
2

Case 1:07-cv-00514-SLR Document 39 Filed 11/19/2007 Page 3 of 3
deems it necessary to address another issue. ln responding to plaintiffs motion for
injunctive relief, CMS made representations to the court that, assuming plaintiff
remained stable, he would begin Hepatitis C treatment on September 29, 2007.
Plaintiffs current motion raise a concern inasmuch as he states that he is not receiving
the "promised ‘lnterferon injections"’ for his Hepatitis C condition but, rather, was
directed to first begin Ribavirin. (D.l. 32) Plaintiff indicates that Ribavirin is
contraindicated for his condition. CMS did not address this issue in its opposition to the
motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, CMS, shall, within four days from the date
of this order, advise the court if Rush is receiving the appropriate medical treatment for
his Hepatitis C condition as it previously represented to the court.
UNITED STATEQISTRICT JUDGE
3

Case 1:07-cv-00514-SLR

Document 39

Filed 11/19/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00514-SLR

Document 39

Filed 11/19/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00514-SLR

Document 39

Filed 11/19/2007

Page 3 of 3