TALBERT v. EVERS

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CHARLES TALBERT : CIVIL ACTION v. > NO. 21-2505 JOSEPH H. EVERS, et al. :

ORDER AND NOW, this 19" day of July 2021, upon considering Plaintiffs Motion for reconsideration (ECF Doc. No. 10) of our June 4, 2021 Order (ECF Doc. No. 5) dismissing his case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and finding no grounds to reconsider for the reasons in the accompanying Memorandum, it is ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion for reconsideration (ECF Doc. No. 10) is DENIED. !

KEARNEY, J.

' A motion for reconsideration may only be granted where 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 granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). The scope of a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) “is extremely limited.” Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 415 (3d Cir. 2011). Motions for reconsideration are not a vehicle for a “second bite at the apple” or to “ask the Court to rethink what [it] had already thought through—tightly or wrongly.” Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220, 1231 (3d Cir. 1995); Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F. Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (alteration in original).