Filed: Mar. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 11, 2019
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MARTIN C. CARLSON , Magistrate Judge . I. Factual Background This case comes before the court for consideration of a motion filed by the plaintiff, Adamassu Regassa, (Doc. 192) which seeks to reconsider and set aside the December 20, 2016 opinion and order of this court granting partial summary judgment to the Bivens defendants based on Regassa's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Docs. 111, 112.) The defendants have responded to this motion by c
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MARTIN C. CARLSON , Magistrate Judge . I. Factual Background This case comes before the court for consideration of a motion filed by the plaintiff, Adamassu Regassa, (Doc. 192) which seeks to reconsider and set aside the December 20, 2016 opinion and order of this court granting partial summary judgment to the Bivens defendants based on Regassa's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Docs. 111, 112.) The defendants have responded to this motion by co..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARTIN C. CARLSON, Magistrate Judge.
I. Factual Background
This case comes before the court for consideration of a motion filed by the plaintiff, Adamassu Regassa, (Doc. 192) which seeks to reconsider and set aside the December 20, 2016 opinion and order of this court granting partial summary judgment to the Bivens defendants based on Regassa's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Docs. 111, 112.)
The defendants have responded to this motion by conceding that some reconsideration of this ruling in necessary in light of a subsequent, intervening change in the law. Specifically:
Defendants respectfully suggest that the Court reconsider its decision finding that Regassa failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to the use of ambulatory restraints and denial of medical care; provide express notice to the parties that "it will consider exhaustion in its role as a fact finder under Small"; and afford the parties the opportunity to submit supplemental briefings on the issue.
(Doc. 195.)
The defendants recommended reconsideration of this decision in light of the Third Circuit's recent decisions in Paladino v. Newsome, 885 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2018) and Walker v. Fisher, 730 F. App'x 100, 102 (3d Cir. 2018), appellate court decisions which came after the district court's ruling and imposed notice requirements on the court when considering factually contested exhaustion claims, requirements which did not exist at the time of the district court's December 2016 ruling.
II. Discussion
Typically, a motion to reconsider should only be granted in three, narrowly defined circumstances. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has observed: "a judgment may be altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration shows at least one of the following grounds: (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." Howard Hess Dental Laboratories Inc. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 602 F.3d 237, 251 (3d Cir. 2010).
In the instant case, the defendants' response to Regassa's motion for reconsideration acknowledges an intervening material change in the law; namely, the Third Circuit's decisions in Paladino v. Newsome, 885 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2018) and Walker v. Fisher, 730 F. App'x 100, 102 (3d Cir. 2018), appellate court decisions which came after the district court's ruling and imposed notice requirements on the court when considering factually contested exhaustion claims which did not exist at the time of the district court's December 2016 ruling. In light of this concession by the defendants, it is submitted that the motion to reconsider should be granted, in part, in that the Court should reconsider its decision finding that Regassa failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to the use of ambulatory restraints and denial of medical care; provide express notice to the parties that it will consider exhaustion in its role as a fact finder under Small; and afford the parties the opportunity to submit supplemental briefings on the issue.
III. Recommendation
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the plaintiff's motion to reconsider (Doc. 192) should be granted given the defendants' concession that the Court should reconsider its decision finding that Regassa failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to the use of ambulatory restraints and denial of medical care; provide express notice to the parties that it will consider exhaustion in its role as a fact finder under Small; and afford the parties the opportunity to submit supplemental briefings on the issue.
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.
