Opinion
3:22-cv-20-SLH-KAP
08-16-2022
NOEL BROWN, Plaintiff, v. S.C.I. SOMERSET, et al., Defendants
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Keith A. Pesto, United States Magistrate Judge
Recommendation
The plaintiff's motion to reopen his case at ECF no. 24, whether considered as a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6), should be denied.
Report
Noel Brown, an inmate in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and therefore subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, filed a complaint in February 2022, complaining about conditions at S.C.I. Somerset. I screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C.§ 1915A and recommended that it be dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave to amend. I advised Brown that failure to file an amended complaint would result in his complaint being reviewed as submitted. Brown filed timely objections but did not amend his complaint. The Court, noting the lack of amendment, dismissed the complaint on August 8, 2022. ECF no. 23.
The instant motion followed, accompanied by a four-page brief at ECF no. 25 that states general principles of law but is untethered to the allegations of the complaint, my review, or the Court's dismissal.
Courts are free to characterize pro se post-judgment motions according to their substance rather than their titles. Moton v. Wetzel, 833 Fed.Appx. 927, 930 (3d Cir. 2020), citing Walker v. Astrue, 593 F.3d 274, 279 (3d Cir. 2010) and Lewis v. Attorney General, 878 F.2d 714, 722 n.20 (3d Cir. 1989). Brown's motion is best understood as one under Rule 59(e).
Brown gives no reason to alter the judgment. The proper bases for a Rule 59(e) motion are (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Wiest v. Lynch, 710 F.3d 121, 128 (3d Cir. 2013)(citations omitted). A motion under Rule 59(e), like one under Rule 60(b), is not a device to relitigate a matter, see Heath v. Superintendent Frackville SCI, 582 Fed.Appx. 82, 85 (3d Cir. 2014), nor a substitute for an appeal. See Abulkhair v. Google, LLC, 839 Fed.Appx. 763, 765 (3d Cir. 2021), citing United States v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282, 288 (3d Cir. 2003).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1), plaintiff can within fourteen days file written objections to this Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff is advised that in the absence of timely and specific objections, any appeal would be severely hampered or entirely defaulted. See EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir.2017) (describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to review for plain error).