WILLIAMS v. THE PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

Opinion

INT HEU NITESDT ATEDSI STRICCOTU RT FORT HEW ESTERDNI STRIOCFPT E NNSYLVANIA CHARLEWSI LLIAMS, ) Plaintiff ) ) C.A.No 2.0 -cvP-ti7t9s4b urgh vs. ) ) DistJurdigcSetusa nP araBdaixstee r THEP AD.E PTO.FC ORRECTIONS, ) Chief Magistrate Judge Ri eta l., ) Defendants MEMORANDUOMR DER I. INTRODUCTION PlaiCnhtairWffli elsl iaamnis n,m cautrer iennctarlcyea rttah Stete aCdto er rectional Insti(t"uStCaiICto"o n)aT lo wnsihniiptt,ih apitrsseo ecd i vriilga hcttsbi aosnoe ned v etnhtast occudrurrehidin sg ipnrciaorrc aeStrC aIt-iFoa(nyS eEetCetFN e o.s1 .2, 0 P)l.a inSteicfofnsd AmendCeodm pl(a"iSnAtaC s"s)ve irotlsa otfti hFoein rassn Etdi gAhmtehn dmaec nitvsi,l rigchotnss pcilraaaiPc mey,nn syldveafnaima(a ltiiabonsendll andcelra)ai nmad,c lafoirm cond"uucntb ecaonom ffiicneg[r E.CN"Fo 9.4 N]a.m edD eafesn daarntetw se nty-eight emplooyfte hePese nnsyDlevpaarntiomafeC notr re(c"tDiODoCne sfe ndaanndtD srJ".i) an , physiwchipoar no vmieddeidsc earlvt iSoc CeIs- Faiynmeatt1te es . 1 TheD OCD efendaarnfoetr:sm DeOrC S ecrWeettazrWeyel t;z Aesls'issJ toahnntfos,ro mnSe;Cr I -Fayette SuperinCtaepnodfozerznmatSe; Cr I -FDaeypeutSttueyp erinantdce unrdreSenuntpt e rinAtrmeenlSd;Ce In­t FayeDtetpeuS tuyp erinNtiecnkdeSelCnsIto- nF;Ca yoerrtetcCetl iaosnssi afincPdar toigoMrnaa nma (g"eCrC PM") HawkinSbCeIr-rFyCa;hy ieHetefta el thcare (A"dCmHiCRinAci"esS);tC rIa-tFoaGryr eitetvCeao nocred inator HousMea;jM oarn kMeayj;ao nrcd u rreDnetp uStuyp erinattSeC nId-eFnaTtyr eetmtpCeua sp;tT aiiftLn;i eutenant WoodLsi;e utFeinsahSneetrr ;gK eoawnatUl nliM;ta na(g"eUrM B"y)e UrMsR ;i ddUlMeE ;r ickUsMHo anw;k ­ LustCeoru;n sNealgoCyro; u nsKenleoprGp uearrMd;i nnGiuea;Br adg aGnu;aF redt sKkiot;cS hteenwC aarsdp er; KitcShteenwK aarcdzm aPrsky;c hologPissytc hGoiBlbrosogowPinnss;;yt c hoSlcohgwiaUsrnttl zoe.ts hse rwise indicaalDtlOe CDd e,fe ndwaenretems p loaytSe CdI -FaTyheCeto tuhera.tus t iltihrzeane kjd,o t bi tolre , desigansastiitgooenn ae cDdhO CD efendiantn hSteA C(.S EeCeFN o9 4,r,,r4 -32). On March 27, 2023, the Court issued a Memorandum Order [ECF No. 134] granting Dr. Jin’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 99], and granting in part and denying in part the DOC Defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 95].? In particular, the Court dismissed all claims against Defendant Jin and the DOC Defendants with prejudice, except for Plaintiff's failure to protect and conditions of confinement claims asserted in Count One of the SAC against Defendants Wetzel, Capozza, and Armel, which were allowed to proceed beyond the pleadings stage. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Memorandum Order. [ECF No. 139]. For the reasons that follow, the motion for reconsideration will be DENIED. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review “Normally, motions for reconsideration are decided under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b).” Black Bear Energy Servs., Inc. v. Youngstown Pipe & Steel, LLC, 2021 WL 4751746, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 2021), quoting In re Nat'l Forge Co., 326 B.R. 532, 541 (W.D. Pa. 2005). A party seeking reconsideration of a final order generally must demonstrate at least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court entered 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), citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995). A motion for reconsideration is also appropriate in instances where the court has “patently misunderstood a The Court’s Memorandum Opinion adopted the Report and Recommendation of Chief United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo. [ECF No. 116].

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.” Rohrboach v. AT & T Nassau Metals Corp., 902 F. Supp. 523, 527 (M.D. Pa. 1995), vacated in part on other grounds on reconsideration, 915 F. Supp. 712 (M.D. Pa. 1996) (citation omitted). A successful motion for reconsideration requires the movant to “demonstrate a ‘definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,’ or that the court overlooked arguments that were previously made.” Black Bear Energy Servs., 2021 WL 4751746, at *3, quoting United States y, Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 676 (E.D. Pa. 2003). Such motions may not be used to

reargue unsuccessful theories or argue facts or issues that were not presented to the court in the context of the previously decided matter. Drysdale y. Woerth, 153 F. Supp. 2d 678, 682 (E.D. Pa. 2001). In other words, a motion for reconsideration is not a means to get a “second bite at the apple.” Kropa v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., 716 F. Supp. 2d 375, 378 (M.D. Pa. 2010). “Because federal courts have a strong interest in the finality of judgments, motions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly.” Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc., 884 F. Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (citation omitted). B. Analysis Upon careful consideration of the record, the Court finds no basis for altering its determination that Plaintiff failed to state a claim against any Defendant except for Armel, Wetzel, and Capozza. Plaintiff argues that reconsideration is warranted because “the information that was documented in the facts of the SAC made out a valid claim against” each of the dismissed Defendants. [ECF No. 139]. Plaintiff adds that this information “would have allowed a reasonable judge” or “impartial fact finder” to determine that the dismissed claims were, in fact, valid. Id.

Plainatlilffesgd aont oiatom nosut noact h anignte hl ea owrn eewv idennodcrote h;e y demons"ttrnhaeetet edoc orrcelceetar rro oflr ao wrp revmeanntii fensjtu sttjoiu sctei"fy reconsiodfhe imrsoa ttiiBoolnnas c.k E nBeerSagyer r 2v0s2.W1,L 4 751a7t4* 63q,,u oting

UniStteadvt .Je ass 2i9nF2,. Sup6p7.6027,d(6 E .PDa2..0 0(3As) u ccemsostfuifolor n reconsirdeeqrutaihtmreioe ovsna t no"t d emonas' tdreafiatnneifid tr ecm o nvitchtaai to n misthaabksee e cno mmitotrte htdah,tce' o uorvte rlaorogkuemdte hnwatetsrp er eviously madeA"c)c.o rdtihCneog ulfirynt,dt shr aetc onsiodfie tMrsea mtoiroanOn rddudemar t,e d March2 022i73ns,,o w ta rranted. ANDN OWt,h 2i8std hao yfA ugu2s0t2,3 , ITI SH EREBOYR DERtEhDPa lta inmtoitffifosorr n e consi[dEeCNrFoa 1.t3 i9io]sn DENIED.

���� SUSAPNA RADIBSAEX TER UniStteadDt iesstJ ruidcgte cc: The HonRoichraar Abd. lLean izllo Cheif UnSaitttMeeasdg isJtugrdea te Alplar iets of recodr