United States District Court, D. New Jersey
WILLIAM COOPER Appearing pro se
MCKAY, P.A. Elizabeth M. Garcia, Esq. Counsel for Defendant
Peter Farlow Sr.
VIGILANTE LAW FIRM, P.C. Jacqueline M. Vigilante, Esq.
Counsel for Defendant John Vernon
OFFICE OF CAMDEN COUNTY COUNSEL Anne E. Walters, Assistant
County Counsel Counsel for Defendants County of Camden,
Camden County Correctional Facility, Correctional Officer
Nnakuru R. Chukudi, and Warden Eric M. Taylor
HONORABLE NOEL L. HILLMAN JUDGE
matter concerns claims by Plaintiff, appearing pro
se, arising from an alleged physical assault by Camden
County Correctional Facility (“CCCF”) corrections
officers while Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee.
Previously, on January 30, 2017, all Defendants moved for
summary judgment in their favor on all of Plaintiff's
claims against them. On September 13, 2017, the Court denied
without prejudice Defendants' motions, and afforded
Plaintiff 45 days to file an opposition. (Docket No. 69.) On
October 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension
of time to file his opposition (Docket No. 70), and the Court
granted his request on October 23, 2017, providing him with
an additional 45 days from the date of the Order (Docket No.
72), thus making Plaintiff's opposition due on December
7, 2017. Plaintiff failed to file an opposition.
11, 2018, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of all
Defendants except for corrections officer John Vernon.
(Docket No. 73.) With regard to Vernon, the Court found that:
(1) Plaintiff had failed to identify specific facts and
affirmative evidence that contradicted those offered by
Vernon, and (2) if this evidence was deemed unrefuted, no
genuine issue of material fact would remain, and Vernon would
be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. (Id.
at 13.) The Court noted that ruling in favor of Vernon would
be consistent with the undisputed evidence currently in the
record and procedurally within the scope of both the letter
and spirit of Rule 56, but afforded Plaintiff one last chance
to respond to Vernon's motion. (Id. at 13-14.)
Plaintiff's response was due on June 11, 2018.
of filing an opposition to Vernon's summary judgment
motion, Plaintiff filed a letter, which the Court has
construed to make several requests. (Docket No. 75.) First,
it appears that Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider the
grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants other
than Vernon, and provide him with discovery. 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 Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann,
Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). A
judgment may be altered or amended only if the party seeking
reconsideration 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. Id.
Court does not find any of those circumstances to be present
here. With regard to Plaintiff's request for discovery,
and the purported lack of discovery serving to prejudice his
ability to respond to those Defendants' motions, the
Court does not find Plaintiff's argument compelling,
particularly because the case began in February 2015,
Plaintiff participated in the discovery process, all the
discovery relative to the summary judgment motions has been
available since those motions were filed January 30, 2017,
and the Court has provided Plaintiff with several lengthy
extensions of time to respond. Thus, the Court's decision
as to those Defendants stands.
Plaintiff's letter requests a 60-day extension to file
his response to Vernon's motion for summary judgment. The
Court will grant that request.
Plaintiff's letter requests that he be provided with the
docket sheets for his case, as well as for the case of his
cellmate, Sanders v. County of Camden,
1:15-cv-01129-NLH-JS. The Court will also grant this request.
appropriate Order will be entered.