DRUMGO v. LITTLE

Civ. Action No. 14-1136-GMS.

DESHAWN DRUMGO, Plaintiff, v. MIKE LITTLE, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

De Shawn Drumgo, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Mike Little, Defendant, represented by Kenisha LaShelle Ringgold , Department of Justice & Stuart B. Drowos , Department of Justice.

Sgt. Patrick Iwaskiewicz, Defendant, represented by Kenisha LaShelle Ringgold , Department of Justice & Stuart B. Drowos , Department of Justice.

C/O Roy Foreaker, Defendant, represented by Kenisha LaShelle Ringgold , Department of Justice & Stuart B. Drowos , Department of Justice.

Lt. Stevenson, Defendant, represented by Kenisha LaShelle Ringgold , Department of Justice & Stuart B. Drowos , Department of Justice.

C/O Timothy Moss, Defendant, represented by Kenisha LaShelle Ringgold , Department of Justice & Stuart B. Drowos , Department of Justice.

Tim Martin, Defendant, represented by Kenisha LaShelle Ringgold , Department of Justice & Stuart B. Drowos , Department of Justice.

C/O Shannon Corbett, Defendant, represented by Kenisha LaShelle Ringgold , Department of Justice & Stuart B. Drowos , Department of Justice.

C/O Kirlin, Defendant, represented by Kenisha LaShelle Ringgold , Department of Justice & Stuart B. Drowos , Department of Justice.


MEMORANDUM

GREGORY M. SLEET, District Judge.

The plaintiff, DeShawn Drumgo ("Drumgo"), is an inmate incarcerated at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center ("VCC"), Smyrna, Delaware. On February 24, 2017, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and against Drumgo. (D.I. 55, 56.) Judgment was entered on February 27, 2017. (D.I. 57.) On March 5, 2017, Drumgo filed a notice of appeal and on March 7, 2017, he filed the instant motion for reconsideration. (D.I. 58, 60.) The appeal has been stayed pending a decision on the motion for reconsideration. (D.I. 62.)

Drumgo moves for reconsideration on the grounds that: (1) he and the defendant are clearly in dispute and the matter can only be decided in front of a jury; (2) the court erred in making a credibility determination; (3) the parties agree that an incident happened but dispute what happened; (4) and he is being taken advantage of because his property was taken as a result of the February 2017 hostage incident at the VCC leaving him with no records, no research, no books, no briefs, and no case law, rendering the litigation unfair. (D.I. 58.)

The standard for obtaining relief under Rule 59(e)'is difficult for Drumgo to meet. The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to "correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). "A proper Rule 59(e) motion ... must rely on one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error oflaw or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing N River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). 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." 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 ofreasoning but of apprehension." Brambles USA, 735 F. Supp. at 1241 (D. Del. 1990) (citations omitted); See also D. Del. LR 7.1.5.

In granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court reviewed the filings, the evidence ofrecord, and the applicable law. The court has again reviewed the court file and finds that Drumgo has failed to demonstrate any of the necessary grounds to warrant reconsideration of the court's February 24, 2017 memorandum opinion and order. Therefore, the court will deny the motion for reconsideration. (D.I. 58.)


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases