Plaintiff asserted claims against multiple other 1

defendants who were terminated from the case at various junctures

and are not relevant to consideration of this motion. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WILLIAM MCKNIGHT, : CIVIL ACTION

: NO. 05-4566

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

BUCKS COUNTY DEP’T OF , :

CORRS., et al., :

:

Defendants. :

M E M O R A N D U M

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J. SEPTEMBER 30, 2009

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff William McKnight (“Plaintiff”) filed a

complaint alleging civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 with respect to his incarceration at the Bucks County

Correctional Facility in Doylestown, Pennsylvania (“Bucks County

Prison”) (doc. no. 3). The thrust of Plaintiff’s complaint is

that the following Defendants, Bucks County Department of

Corrections (“Bucks County Corrections”), Willis Morton

(“Morton”), Budd (“Budd”), Sergeant Lorenzo (“Lorenzo”), Gauntt

(“Gauntt”), Roque (“Roque”), and Martin (“Martin”) (collectively,

“Defendants”), engaged in a pattern of conduct to retaliate 1

against Plaintiff for exercising constitutionally protected

rights, specifically Plaintiff’s right to petition the government

Case 2:05-cv-04566-ER Document 68 Filed 09/30/09 Page 1 of 14
The instant motion for reconsideration does not 2

challenge the Court’s Order with respect to Bucks County

Corrections.

The instant motion for reconsideration does not 3

challenge the Court’s Order with respect to Willis Morton.

-2-

for redress in connection with the failure of Defendants to

accommodate his dietary restrictions. Plaintiff alleges that

this retaliation was manifested through the following actions:

(1) the seizure and destruction of his legal documents; (2)

insufficient dental treatment; (3) unwarranted confinement to

Bucks County Prisons’s Restricted Housing Unit as a result of a

disciplinary proceeding involving fellow inmate Ulysses Moore

(“Moore”); and (4) two intrusive urinalysis tests intended to

harass and antagonize Plaintiff. 

On October 29, 2008, the Court granted Defendants’

motion for summary judgment. The Court ruled in favor of the

seven Defendants on the following individual grounds. First,

Bucks County Corrections was not liable because Plaintiff failed

to allege retaliation as a result of a policy or custom.2

Second, Morton was not liable because Plaintiff failed to

properly allege retaliation under a supervisory liability

theory. Third, Lorenzo was not liable because the single and 3

brief confrontation alleged by Plaintiff did not rise to the

level of an adverse action sufficient to deter a person of

ordinary firmness from petitioning the government for the redress

of grievances. Fourth, Budd was not liable for the following

Case 2:05-cv-04566-ER Document 68 Filed 09/30/09 Page 2 of 14
-3-

reasons: (1) Plaintiff failed to properly allege retaliation

under a supervisory liability theory; and (2) the single and

brief incident of “implied” future retaliation did not rise to

the level of an adverse action. Fifth, Gauntt was not liable for

the following reasons: (1) Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a

causal link between the alleged adverse actions and the alleged

retaliation; and (2) Plaintiff failed to show that he was denied

“access to the courts.” Sixth, Roque was not liable because

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a causal link between the alleged

adverse actions and the alleged retaliation and Plaintiff failed

to show that Roque “manipulated” Moore into making false

statements at Plaintiff’s disciplinary hearing. Seventh, Martin

was not liable for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiff failed

to demonstrate a causal link between the alleged adverse actions

and the alleged retaliation and Plaintiff failed to show that

Moore was “manipulated” into making false statements at

Plaintiff’s disciplinary hearing; and (2) Plaintiff did not have

a constitutional right to confront and cross-examine Moore at his

disciplinary hearing. Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of

certain of the Court’s findings.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

A motion for reconsideration is treated as the

Case 2:05-cv-04566-ER Document 68 Filed 09/30/09 Page 3 of 14
As Plaintiff is acting pro se, his pleadings are 4

interpreted under the more liberal standard afforded to pro se

plaintiffs. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).

-4-

“functional equivalent” of a motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) which

seeks to alter or amend a judgment. Fed. Kemper Ins. Co. v.

Rauscher, 807 F.2d 345, 348 (3d Cir. 1986) (internal citation

omitted). The purpose of a motion for reconsideration of a

summary judgment order is to “correct manifest errors of law or

fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Harsco Co. v.

Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Reconsideration is

appropriate where the party seeking reconsideration establishes

“(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the

availability of new evidence that was not available when the

court . . . [issued its previous decision]; or (3) the need to

correct a clear error of law or fact or prevent manifest

injustice.” Max’s Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou Ann v. Quinteros, 176

F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999); North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA

Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995).

B. Proposed Grounds for Reconsideration

Plaintiff now seeks to have the Court reconsider the

Court’s Order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff argues generally that there was evidence sufficient to

survive a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s arguments

with respect to each of the individual defendants will be

discussed ad seriatim below.4

Case 2:05-cv-04566-ER Document 68 Filed 09/30/09 Page 4 of 14
-5-

1. Defendant Gauntt

Plaintiff alleges that the Court’s Order did not

consider “statements provided by eyewitnesses and a logbook entry

made by former defendant Huttick” showing “that defendant Gauntt

possessed some motivation to deny knowledge of any prior

complaints made [P]laintiff [sic].” Pet’r’s Mot. Recons. ¶ 8-9. 

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Gauntt was aware of Plaintiff’s

prior complaints based on either information from fellow

correctional office employees or “his own perusal of plaintiff’s

legal papers.” Plaintiff does not point to now, as he did not

point to earlier, evidence to substantiate either of these

theories. 

Instead Plaintiff merely reasserts his previous

allegation that Defendant Gauntt was aware of Plaintiff’s claims

based on the fact that Plaintiff’s purported legal documents were

discarded. Plaintiff attempts to generate a factual dispute

regarding Defendant Gauntt’s knowledge of Plaintiff’s prior

complaints by referencing a logbook entry of Corrections Officer

Huttick indicating that Plaintiff’s folder containing his legal

documents was discarded. Ex. A. Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. Summ.

J. 

In contrast to Plaintiff’s assertion, the Court

considered Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant Gauntt’s

Case 2:05-cv-04566-ER Document 68 Filed 09/30/09 Page 5 of 14
-6-

knowledge of Plaintiff’s complaints could be inferred from the

alleged discarding of the folder containing his legal documents. 

The Court concluded that even when drawing all reasonable

inferences in favor of Plaintiff, Plaintiff had not pointed to

“any evidence that Defendant Gauntt had knowledge of Plaintiff’s

prior complaints about his dietary concerns to the authorities,” 

See McKnight v. Bucks County Dep’t of Corrs., No. 05-4566, 2008

WL 4771845, *4 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 29, 2008), or even that Defendant

Gauntt was the one who allegedly discarded the documents. 

Since the Court considered the same set of factual allegations

concerning Defendant Gauntt in granting Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment, Plaintiff’s allegations in the current motion

cannot qualify as evidence which was unavailable at the time of

the court’s decision in order to satisfy the Rule 59(e) standard. 

Even assuming that Plaintiff’s legal folder was

discarded by Defendant Gauntt, a highly unlikely proposition on

this record, Plaintiff fails to point to the existence of a

causal link between the alleged adverse action and the alleged

retaliation. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that

Defendant Gauntt read the contents of the file and that based on

this perusal of the documents inside the file, he learned of

Plaintiff’s prior complaints about his dietary concerns to the

authorities. 

Furthermore, Plaintiff now, with the guidance of the

Case 2:05-cv-04566-ER Document 68 Filed 09/30/09 Page 6 of 14
-7-

Court’s Order, claims 

that the Court erroneously interpreted the facts of his

complaint because there is no allegation that the

documents seized by [D]efendant Gauntt pertained to the

instant action. In fact, [P]laintiff’s complaint and

response to the current motion asserted that the

confiscated documents concerned litigation he

contemplated filing but was unable to do so because

numerous pages of legal documents were discarded by the

defendants, evidently because they contained

information and statements that were disfavorable [sic]

to the defendants.

Pet’r’s Mot. Recons. ¶ 15. In either event, whether the

discarded documents relate to the instant action or to future

unrelated litigation, the result is the same, i.e., Plaintiff has

not suffered “actual injury.” See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,

351 (1996). Since Plaintiff failed to articulate any precise

legal claim adversely affected by the alleged discarding of his

legal file, he failed to demonstrate actual injury. See

Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002) (finding that a

prisoner must show that a “nonfrivolous” and “arguable” claim was

lost in order to demonstrate a denial of access claim). 

Furthermore, Plaintiff had regular access to the law

library at Bucks County Correctional Facility in Doylestown,

Pennsylvania. Plaintiff now asserts that the testimony provided

by Defendants from the Bucks County Prison’s librarian regarding

his use of the library facilities involved an unrelated criminal

matter in New Jersey. Plaintiff never alleges, however, that

said law library was inadequate nor that he was unable to obtain

Case 2:05-cv-04566-ER Document 68 Filed 09/30/09 Page 7 of 14
-8-

assistance from persons trained in the law with respect to this

proceeding or any other matter. Again Plaintiff merely

reiterates his prior allegations, which fails to meet the

threshold requirement under Rule 59(e).

In the supplement to Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration, Plaintiff raises the argument that Defendant

Gauntt’s seizure and destruction of his legal documents violated

his constitutional right to free speech. Plaintiff now alleges

that Defendant Gauntt’s destruction of his legal documents was

intended to interfere with his ability to exercise his right to

free speech. First, Plaintiff improperly attempts to reconfigure

his original claims at this stage of the proceedings to pursue a

different avenue of relief. See Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas

Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220, 1231 (3d Cir. 1995) (noting that a motion for

reconsideration is not intended to allow a party to “simply

change[ ] theories and [try] again,” thus providing “a second

bite at the apple”). Even assuming the Court could consider

Plaintiff’s newly raised free speech claim, it possesses the same

factual infirmity as Plaintiff’s previous claims, namely

Plaintiff fails to point to any evidence of record that Defendant

Gauntt was involved with, or even aware of, the discarding of

Plaintiff’s legal documents. 

2. Defendant Budd

Plaintiff challenges the Court’s Order by stating that

Case 2:05-cv-04566-ER Document 68 Filed 09/30/09 Page 8 of 14
-9-

the record was sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material

fact that Defendant Budd was personally involved in the alleged

retaliatory acts against him. Here, as stated in the Court’s

Order, there is no such evidence of record.

Furthermore, Plaintiff now states that the Complaint

should be read to allege that Defendant Budd’s “implicit” threats

“were followed by various acts of retaliatory conduct on the part

of [D]efendant Gauntt and other subordinate employees at [Bucks

County Corrections].” Pl.’s Mot. Recons. ¶ 21. Plaintiff now

alleges that Defendant Budd’s “tone and demeanor” during

Plaintiff’s encounter in which he was implicitly threatened to

refrain from pursuing additional complaints constitutes evidence

of the connection between the “implicit threat” and the supposed

retaliation. 

Plaintiff, however, does not point to evidence of any

statements or actions taken by Defendant Budd during this

encounter to bolster Plaintiff’s claim. Even drawing all

reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff, the evidence of

record shows that Defendant Budd’s action was, at best, a “single

and brief incident of ‘implied future retaliation’” which failed

to constitute an adverse action. McKnight,, 2008 WL 4771845, at

*4. Again, Plaintiff points to no evidence from which to infer a

connection between Defendant Budd’s “implicit” threats and an

alleged elaborate scheme of retaliatory acts against Plaintiff. 

Case 2:05-cv-04566-ER Document 68 Filed 09/30/09 Page 9 of 14
Moore previously was a co-defendant in this case, but 5

was dismissed from this proceeding in accordance with an

agreement between the parties. 

-10-

Therefore, the relief sought by Plaintiff is improper under the

well-established standard of review under Rule 59(e). 

3. Defendant Roque

Plaintiff claims that Defendant Roque was aware of his

prior complaints because “she [was] responsible for the

preparation of inmate meals.” Pl.’s Mot. Recons. ¶ 31. The

Court rejects now, as it rejected earlier, the proposed inference

that Defendant Roque was aware of Plaintiff’s complaints solely

as a result of her ordinary duties as kitchen staff. 

Plaintiff further fails to point to any evidence to

show that Moore, another inmate, was “manipulated” by Defendant 5

Roque into testifying falsely at Plaintiff’s disciplinary action. 

Plaintiff previously alleged that Defendants Roque and Martin

knowingly “used the fictitious statements they purportedly

obtained from Moore to sentence [Plaintiff] to a term of thirty

(30) days in disciplinary segregation for an assault which . . .

never occurred.” Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. at 5. 

Plaintiff now contends that Moore’s answers to Plaintiff’s

interrogatories create a genuine issue of material fact because

the answers to the interrogatories are at odds with Moore’s

testimony at the disciplinary hearing. To that end Plaintiff

offers Moore’s responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories:

Case 2:05-cv-04566-ER Document 68 Filed 09/30/09 Page 10 of 14
The notes from the report generated at Plaintiff’s 6

disciplinary hearing clearly indicate that Moore testified that

he was assaulted by Plaintiff with a food tray. See Ex. 6,

Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. (“Witness said he did get hit with the tray

McKnight threw in the slott [sic] because he was not happy with

his meal.”). 

-11-

[Question # 1:] Did you testify at an institutional

misconduct hearing that plaintiff assaulted you with a

meal tray?

Answer: I did not testify at any disciplinary hearing

that I was assaulted by Mr. McKnight.

[Question # 2:] Did you see plaintiff assault you with

a meal tray?

Answer: No, I did not.

[Question # 3:] Did Corrections Officer Roque provide

you with information which identified plaintiff as the

person who allegedly assaulted you?

Answer: Yes. 

[Question # 4:] Were you called to plaintiff’s

misconduct hearing? 

Answer: No, I was not called to Mr. McKnight’s

misconduct hearing.

Ex. B, Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. (emphasis added). 

6

Plaintiff’s current argument is confusing, at best,

because Moore’s answers to the interrogatories do not state that

he testified falsely at the disciplinary hearing, but rather that

he did not testify at all. Clearly, Moore’s statements that he

did not testify at all cannot support the claim that he testified

falsely. In any event, at the motion for reconsideration stage,

Plaintiff is precluded from attempting to rework his legal theory

from an allegation that Moore testified falsely into a revised

theory that Moore did not testify at all and that the entire

disciplinary hearing was a sham, in an effort to create a genuine

issue of material fact. See Bhatnagar, 52 F.3d at 1231 (noting

Case 2:05-cv-04566-ER Document 68 Filed 09/30/09 Page 11 of 14
Plaintiff does not challenge the Court’s Order with 7

respect to the claim that Defendant Martin did not permit

Plaintiff to be present during Moore’s testimony at his

disciplinary hearing. Nevertheless, no grounds exist to

reconsider this finding.

-12-

that a motion for reconsideration is not intended to allow a

party to “simply change[ ] theories and [try] again,” thus

providing “a second bite at the apple”). Therefore, Plaintiff’s

bare allegation of manipulation clearly does not constitute new

evidence not previously considered by the Court justifying

reconsideration of the Court’s summary judgment order.

4. Defendant Martin

Plaintiff avers generally that Defendant Martin was

aware of his prior complaints because they were part of an

“ongoing saga . . . of internal grievances and a letter to [Judge

Goldberg].” Pl.’s Mot. Recons. ¶ 28. Plaintiff lumps together

his factual assertions as to Defendants Martin and Roque with

respect to Defendant Martin’s awareness of his complaints and

retaliation. As with Defendant Roque, Plaintiff fails to point

to evidence of record that Moore was “manipulated” by Defendant

Martin in any way with respect to Plaintiff’s misconduct

hearing. As discussed above, the Court considered Moore’s 7

answers to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and concluded that these

statements do not create a material dispute as to whether

Defendant Martin manipulated Moore into testifying falsely

against Plaintiff. Since Plaintiff has pointed to no other

Case 2:05-cv-04566-ER Document 68 Filed 09/30/09 Page 12 of 14
-13-

evidence demonstrating that Moore was manipulated by either

Defendant Roque or Defendant Martin, no newly available facts or

clear error of law exist which would justify reconsideration of

the Court’s order. 

5. Defendant Lorenzo

Plaintiff bases his argument in support of

reconsideration on his view that Defendant Lorenzo was aware of

Plaintiff’s prior complaints. Plaintiff misinterprets the

Court’s Order. The Court accepted that Defendant Lorenzo had

knowledge of Plaintiff’s prior complaints and held that “the

single and brief confrontation with Sergeant Lorenzo . . . [did

not rise] to the level of an adverse action sufficient to deter a

person of ordinary firmness from petitioning the government for

redress of grievances.” McKnight, 2008 WL 4771845, at *4. 

Plaintiff presents no new evidence to show that he was ever

physically threatened or suffered physical harm while

incarcerated at Bucks County Prison. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot

meet his burden of demonstrating that the Court should reconsider

its finding that Plaintiff’s limited contact with Defendant

Lorenzo did not constitute an adverse action sufficient for

constitutional relief. 

Moreover, Plaintiff simply reasserts the allegations

contained in his complaint and summary judgment motion that

Defendant Lorenzo’s awareness of Plaintiff’s complaint preceded

Case 2:05-cv-04566-ER Document 68 Filed 09/30/09 Page 13 of 14
-14-

his unwarranted disciplinary action by only a few days, and

therefore, this action was retaliatory in nature. Plaintiff

merely reiterates the arguments already considered by the Court

and sets forth no additional evidence or argument to support the

causal connection between these two instances. Therefore,

adequate grounds do not exist to reconsider the Court’s ruling.

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff attempts to have the Court review the merits

of its decision without providing any additional grounds as

required under Rule 59(e). Moreover, there is neither a need to

correct a clear error of law or fact nor prevent manifest

injustice. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above,

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be denied. An

appropriate order follows.

Case 2:05-cv-04566-ER Document 68 Filed 09/30/09 Page 14 of 14