Opinion
CIVIL 3:19-CV-00092
06-10-2023
SEAN M. FRYER, Plaintiff, v. SATISH MALLIK, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SUSAN E. SCHWAB, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Introduction.
Plaintiff Sean M. Fryer (“Fryer”) has filed a motion to have his case reconsidered. Fryer has not filed a brief in support of his motion to reconsider. We, therefore, recommend that Fryer's motion for reconsideration be deemed withdrawn.
II. Background and Procedural History.
Fryer filed his initial complaint on January 14, 2019, naming the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and Assistant United States Attorney Michelle Olshefski, Esquire (“Olshefski”) as defendants. Doc. 1. Fryer alleged that on September 10, 2018, the police entered his grandmother's residence and arrested him without informing him why he was under arrest, and without a warrant. Id. at 2-3. According to Fryer, an agent entrapped him on social media, and coerced him into committing a sex crime. Id. at 4. Fryer also complained about the conditions of his confinement following his arrest. Id. After screening the original complaint, we concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See doc. 13 at 14. More specifically, we concluded that Fryer could not seek release from custody in this civil-rights action, that the FBI was not a proper defendant, and that claims against Olshefski were barred by prosecutorial immunity. Id. at 13. We granted Fryer leave to file an amended complaint. We also granted Fryer's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. See doc. 9.
By way of an amended complaint, Fryer dropped the FBI as a defendant and added Lackawanna County Prison Sergeant Isaac Hebron (“Hebron”) and Lackawanna Prison Psychiatrist Satish Mallik, M.D. (“Mallik”) as defendants. Doc. 12. The claims against Hebron and Mallik were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the claim against Olshefski was a Bivens action. Id. In his amended complaint, Fryer alleged that during his detention hearing in his criminal case, Olshefski “divulged privileged information that [he] discussed in presumed confidence with [his] psychiatrist at the prison during the intake process and as part of follow-up meetings with him after [he] was placed in a special handling cell for mental health observation.” Doc. 12 at 5. Fryer also asserted that Olshefski discussed in open court that he was placed under observation because he supposedly told prison officials he was suicidal due to having feelings of guilt. Id. Fryer's amended complaint further alleged that Mallik was responsible for the release of his medical records to Olshefski, and that Mallik should have made efforts to ensure that the health information disclosed was kept more private. Id.
These alleged violations of privacy led to Fryer being placed on medication and moved to the observation cell in the “Delta Unit” of Lackawanna County Prison. Id. at 3. Fryer alleges as an indirect result of his placement on observation he was strip searched while naked, maced when he refused to strip, and denied access to newspapers. Id. at 1-3.
Adopting the report and recommendation of the undersigned, Judge Mariani dismissed the claims against Olshefski and Hebron on September 6, 2019. Docs. 13, 14. Olshefski was deemed entitled to absolute immunity from suit because she acted in her prosecutorial capacity over the course of the events in question. Doc. 13 at 13.
The case proceeded with Mallik as the only remaining defendant. After the close of discovery, Mallik filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 26. In the brief supporting the motion, Olshefski provided an affidavit attesting to the fact that she sent a subpoena to Lackawanna County Prison relating to Fryer's medical records. Doc. 27 at 11. Mallik further provided that he was not responsible for the prison's medical records at the time of the events in question. Id. at 7-8. Mallik filed a statement of material facts in support of his motion, but Fryer did not respond to that statement, and so pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, M.D. Pa. L.R. 56.1, he was deemed to have admitted the following facts:
On or about September 2018, Fryer was arrested on federal charges pending against him in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Fryer was incarcerated at the Lackawanna County Prison pending the disposition of his criminal case. As part of its prosecution of Fryer, the United States Attorney's Office forwarded a subpoena to the Lackawanna County Prison requesting copies of Fryer's medical records. The subpoena was directed to the attention of the “Medical Records Department/Dr. Zaloga.” As a result of the subpoena, the United States Attorney's Office received certain medical records from the Lackawanna County Prison concerning Fryer.
Assistant United States Attorney Michelle Olshefski was in charge of Fryer's prosecution. In December 2018, Fryer was brought before the court for a detention hearing. At this hearing, according to Fryer, Olshefski used his confidential psychiatric information from the Lackawanna County Prison. But neither Olshefski nor anyone from the United States Attorney's Office spoke with or contacted Dr. Mallik regarding Fryer, his mental-health status, or his medical records. Fryer is not aware of how the United States Attorney's Office received his mental health information or his medical records, and he does not have evidence that Dr. Mallik provided the United States Attorney's Office with this information.Doc. 33 at 7, 8 (citations to the record omitted).
On May 12, 2021, Judge Mariani granted the summary judgment motion, adopting the recommendation of the undersigned. Doc. 34. Nearly seven months after the case was closed, Fryer filed a motion to reopen his case on December 8, 2021. Doc. 36. Fryer is requesting this court to reopen the case, specifically, it appears, against Olshefski because of information he allegedly learned after the filing of the original action. Id. at 2. The new information purportedly related to the issuance, or lack thereof, of a subpoena for Fryer's medical records sent by Olshefksi and the United States Attorney's office to the Lackawanna County Prison where Fryer was being held. Id. Fryer filed a brief in support of his motion in the same document. Id. On December 20, 2021, Mallik filed a brief in opposition to the Fryer's motion to reopen his case, specifically addressing the fact that Fryer was aware of the subpoena during discovery. Id. at 5. In response, Fryer filed a reply brief rearticulating his bases for his claim. Doc. 38. We address the motion to reopen in a separate Report and Recommendation.
Fryer filed the instant motion for reconsideration on March 15, 2022. See doc. 39. He is seeking to have the May 12, 2021 order of Judge Mariani adopting the Report and Recommendation of Judge Schwab reconsidered. Id. Fryer suggests that Olshefski is not entitled to prosecutorial immunity, citing cases based on qualified immunity. Id. at 1. Fryer, however, has failed to file a brief in support of his motion to reconsider.
III. Discussion.
As “[t]he purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence,” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), “[t]he scope of a motion for reconsideration. . . is extremely limited.” Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 415 (3d Cir. 2011). “A proper Rule 59(e) motion therefore 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 clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010). Mere disagreement with the court, however, does not translate into a clear error of law or fact. Petruzzi's, Inc. v. Darling-Delaware Co., Inc., 983 F.Supp. 595, 611 (M.D. Pa. 1996). “A motion for reconsideration is not a tool to relitigate and reargue issues which have already been considered and disposed of by the court.” Id. “Nor is it to be used to put forth additional arguments which could have been made but which the party neglected to make before judgment.” Waye v. First Citizen's Nat'l Bank, 846 F.Supp. 310, 314 (M.D. Pa. 1994), aff'd, 31 F.3d 1175 (3d Cir. 1994). In the interest of finality, courts should grant motions for reconsideration sparingly. Rottmund v. Continental Assurance Co., 813 F.Supp. 1104, 1107 (E.D. Pa. 1992).
Further, Local Rule 7.5 provides:
Within fourteen (14) days after the filing of any motion, the party filing the motion shall file a brief in support of the motion. If the motion seeks a protective order, a supporting brief shall be filed with the motion. If a supporting brief is not filed within the time provided in this rule the motion shall be deemed to be withdrawn. A brief shall not be required: (a) In support of a motion for enlargement of time if the reasons for
the request are fully stated in the motion, (b) In support of any motion which has concurrence of all parties, and the reasons for the motion and the relief sought are fully stated therein, or (c) In support of a motion for appointment of counsel.
Fryer has not filed a brief in support of his motion for reconsideration in compliance with the local rules. Fryer, therefore, has not advanced any arguments or pointed to any evidence that satisfies the requisite grounds for reconsidering Judge Mariani's decision to grant summary judgment. For the foregoing reasons, we recommend that the court deem his motion withdrawn.
IV. Recommendation.
For the foregoing reasons, we recommend that the court deem Fryer's motion for reconsideration (doc. 39) withdrawn.
The Parties are further placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule 72.3:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.
The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.