United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Inspiration Blackwell, Plaintiff pro se #1161920/160249C
Southern State Correctional Facility
Simandle, U.S. District Judge
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Inspiration
Blackwell's motion for reconsideration of the Court's
dismissal of his civil rights complaint under Local Civil
Rule 41.1(a). [Docket Entry 16]. For the reasons expressed
below, the motion is granted.
filed a complaint against Atlantic County Justice Facility
(“ACJF”) Warden Geraldine Cohen, the ACJF Medical
Staff, the Atlantic County Freeholders, Atlantic County
Executive Dennis Levison, Freeholder Chairman Frank Formica,
and medical providers CFG on September 1, 2016. [Docket Entry
1]. Plaintiff alleged he broke his right hand on June 26,
2016 when he slammed it into a door. [Id. ¶ 4].
Medical staff examined him approximately an hour later and
transported him to a hospital. [Id.]. He was
released from the hospital and taken back to ACJF
“where no compliance was with the hospital's
orders, I complain, stay in pain . . . .”
[Id.]. He returned to the hospital a few weeks later
where his hand was rebroken “because proper care had
not been applied . . . .” [Id.]. He was
prescribed “therapy, ” but he never received it.
He stated he was placed in solitary confinement for
complaining. [Id.]. Plaintiff further alleged he
wrote to Warden Cohen, spoke with officers, and tried to
speak with the director, but he was “thrown out of
medical.” [Id.]. He also claimed the facility
“stopped [his] communication.” [Id.].
Court granted Plaintiff's in forma pauperis
application, [Docket Entry 4], and screened the complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, [Docket Entry 7].
Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claims against Warden
Cohen and his deliberate indifference and medical malpractice
claims against the ACJF medical staff were permitted to
proceed. [Docket Entry 8].
Clerk of the Court sent Plaintiff U.S. Marshal Form 285 on
August 31, 2017 to be completed and returned by Plaintiff so
defendants could be served by the Marshals. [Docket Entry 9].
On December 1, 2017, the Clerk filed a certification that
Plaintiff had not returned the completed 285 forms. [Docket
Entry 10]. After more than 90 days of inactivity in the case,
the Court issued a Notice of Call for Dismissal under Local
Civil Rule 41.1(a) on May 3, 2018. [Docket Entry 11]. That
notice was sent to the address on file for Plaintiff, the
ACJF, and was returned as undeliverable on May 15, 2018.
[Docket Entry 12]. The case was dismissed on May 29, 2018.
[Docket Entry 13]. That order was also returned as
undeliverable on June 5, 2018. [Docket Entry 14].
contacted the Court on October 15, 2018 inquiring as to the
status of his case. [Docket Entry 15]. On November 8, 2018,
he filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the
dismissal order. [Docket Entry 16]. He states the matter
should be reopened because he did not receive the Notice of
Call for Dismissal. [Id. at 1]. He states he was
transferred from ACJF to CRAF on April 27, 2018.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Civil Rule 7.1 allows a party to seek a motion for reargument
or reconsideration of “matter[s] or controlling
decisions which the party believes the Judge or Magistrate
Judge has overlooked . . . .” Local Civ. R.
7.1(i). Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is a
matter within the Court's discretion, but it should only
be granted where such facts or legal authority were indeed
presented but overlooked. See DeLong v. Raymond
Int'l Inc., 622 F.2d 1135, 1140 (3d Cir. 1980),
overruled on other grounds by Croker v. Boeing Co.,
662 F.2d 975 (3d Cir. 1981); see also Williams v.
Sullivan, 818 F.Supp. 92, 93 (D.N.J. 1993).
prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must
(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence that was not available when the
court ... [rendered the judgment in question]; or (3) the
need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent
U.S. ex rel. Shumann v. Astrazeneca Pharm. L.P., 769
F.3d 837, 848-49 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Max's Seafood
Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d
669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)). The standard of review involved in
a motion for reconsideration is high and relief is to be