Filed: Jun. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: ALD-170 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 18-3602 _ OMAR FOLK, Appellant v. PRIME CARE MEDICAL; DAUPHIN COUNTY PRISON; PERRY COUNTY PRISON; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA; DAVID E. YEINGST; DOMINICK DEROSE; P.A. TONYA SCHISLER; LPN TOM TOOLAN; DR. MATTHEW LEGAL; LT. TWIGG; SGT. KELLER; THOMAS LONG; CITY OF HARRISBURG; PERRY COUNTY CITY; HEIDI R. FREESE; DAUPHIN COUNTY; C.O. CHARLES DONBAUGH; P.A. YOUNG; BOARD CHAIRMAN; PERRY COUNTY PRISON; CHAD CHENET;
Summary: ALD-170 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 18-3602 _ OMAR FOLK, Appellant v. PRIME CARE MEDICAL; DAUPHIN COUNTY PRISON; PERRY COUNTY PRISON; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA; DAVID E. YEINGST; DOMINICK DEROSE; P.A. TONYA SCHISLER; LPN TOM TOOLAN; DR. MATTHEW LEGAL; LT. TWIGG; SGT. KELLER; THOMAS LONG; CITY OF HARRISBURG; PERRY COUNTY CITY; HEIDI R. FREESE; DAUPHIN COUNTY; C.O. CHARLES DONBAUGH; P.A. YOUNG; BOARD CHAIRMAN; PERRY COUNTY PRISON; CHAD CHENET; ..
More
ALD-170 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 18-3602
___________
OMAR FOLK,
Appellant
v.
PRIME CARE MEDICAL; DAUPHIN COUNTY PRISON; PERRY COUNTY
PRISON; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA; DAVID E. YEINGST;
DOMINICK DEROSE; P.A. TONYA SCHISLER; LPN TOM TOOLAN; DR.
MATTHEW LEGAL; LT. TWIGG; SGT. KELLER; THOMAS LONG; CITY OF
HARRISBURG; PERRY COUNTY CITY; HEIDI R. FREESE; DAUPHIN COUNTY;
C.O. CHARLES DONBAUGH; P.A. YOUNG; BOARD CHAIRMAN; PERRY
COUNTY PRISON; CHAD CHENET; PERRY COUNTY PRISON BOARD
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(M.D. Pa. Civil No. 3:13-cv-00474)
District Judge: Honorable Robert D. Mariani
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
April 25, 2019
Before: McKEE, SHWARTZ and BIBAS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 18, 2019)
_________
OPINION *
_________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding
precedent.
PER CURIAM
Pro se appellant Omar Folk, proceeding in forma pauperis, appeals from the
District Court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. For the reasons that follow, we
will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.
In February 2013, Folk filed a complaint in the District Court alleging a series of
claims about his medical care while he has been incarcerated, access to the prison law
library, and his public defender’s actions in a criminal case. The District Court ultimately
dismissed all of Folk’s claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim and denied his
motions for reconsideration. We affirmed the District Court’s judgment on July 10,
2018.
Soon after, Folk filed another motion for reconsideration in the District Court.
Folk primarily restated and added to the allegations he had previously made and
discussed several new unrelated incidents regarding his medical care. Additionally, Folk
maintained that the medication he was taking somehow prevented him from fully
explaining his allegations during the five years that his case and his previous appeal were
pending. The District Court denied his motion. Folk timely appealed. 1
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
the denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. See Max’s Seafood
Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros,
176 F.3d 669, 673 (3d Cir. 1999). We may
summarily affirm a district court’s decision “on any basis supported by the record” if the
1
Folk also moves to consolidate this appeal with his earlier appeal at C.A. No. 18-1352.
2
appeal fails to present a substantial question. See Murray v. Bledsoe,
650 F.3d 246, 247
(3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Folk’s motion, as it was
not based on a proper ground for reconsideration, such as an intervening change in law,
newly discovered evidence, or “the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to
prevent manifest injustice.” See Max’s Seafood
Café, 176 F.3d at 677. Rather, Folk’s
motion relied on allegations that he either already made or could have made in the
District Court and in his prior appeal. Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District
Court’s judgment. 2
2
Additionally, we deny Folk’s motion to consolidate.
3