1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JERVIS LAVERN GOODRICH, :

:

Plaintiff, : No. 04-CV-1603

:

v. : Judge Jones

:

STEPHEN WILCOX, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

ORDER

December 12, 2006

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (“the

Motion”) (doc. 38), filed on August 21, 2006. For the reasons that follow, the

Motion will be denied. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND/PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

This is a civil rights action for damages brought by pro se plaintiff Jervis

Lavern Goodrich (“Plaintiff” or “Goodrich”). Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at

FCI-Allenwood in White Deer, Pennsylvania. In the above-captioned case,

Plaintiff asserted that Defendants illegally stopped and searched the vehicle in

which he was a passenger on September 11, 2002. Evidence of Plaintiff’s

involvement in the theft of anhydrous ammonia was obtained from the search. 

Case 4:04-cv-01603-JEJ Document 40 Filed 12/12/06 Page 1 of 6
2

In Plaintiff’s resulting criminal case before this Court on charges of

conspiracy to manufacture and distribute a controlled substance, theft of anhydrous

ammonia, and possession of listed chemicals/distribution of a controlled substance,

see United States v. Goodrich, 4:03-cr-0036, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Suppress

much of the evidence against him resulting from the search, which was denied. Id.

at docs. 60, 95. Following Plaintiff’s subsequent trial, conviction, and appeal with

the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, see United States v. Goodrich, Appeal

No. 05-3071, on June 20, 2006, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the

validity of the stop and affirmed our judgment denying Plaintiff’s Motion to

Suppress. 

On July 19, 2006, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a

supporting brief in the instant action, arguing that collateral estoppel barred

Plaintiff’s claim. (Rec. Docs. 35, 36). Plaintiff failed to file a brief opposing the

Motion, and we so noted in our August 4, 2006 Order granting Defendants’ Motion

for Summary Judgment. (Rec. Doc. 37 at 3, 5-6). Although in the aforementioned

Order, we indicated that Plaintiff’s failure to file an brief in opposition caused the

Motion to be deemed unopposed pursuant to Local Rule (“L.R.”) 7.6, we,

nevertheless, proceeded to consider Defendants’ Motion on the merits and

concluded that Plaintiff’s action was barred by collateral estoppel. (Rec. Doc. 37

Case 4:04-cv-01603-JEJ Document 40 Filed 12/12/06 Page 2 of 6
3

at 6-8). 

On August 21, 2006, more than ten (10) business days after the entry of our

August 4, 2006 Order, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration, which

will form the basis of this Order. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW:

Motions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly as federal courts

have a strong interest in the finality of judgments. Burger King Corp. v. New

England Hood & Duct Cleaning Co., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1022, at *2 (E.D. Pa.

2000). “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

Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting Harsco Corp. v.

Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 (1986)). 

“Accordingly, 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.” Id. (citing

North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir.

1995)). 

Case 4:04-cv-01603-JEJ Document 40 Filed 12/12/06 Page 3 of 6
1

 L.R. 7.10 states: “Any motion for reconsideration or reargument shall be filed within

ten (10) days after the entry of the judgment, order or decree concerned.” L.R. 7.10. 

2

 L.R. 7.5 states, in relevant part: “Within ten (10) days after the filing of any motion

filed prior to trial, the party filing the same shall file a brief in support of the motion . . . Unless

otherwise ordered by the court, if supporting legal briefs are not filed within the time provide in

this rule such motion shall be deemed withdrawn . . . .” L.R. 7.5. 

4

DISCUSSION:

We initially note that Plaintiff has violated two of this Court’s Local Rules

with his filing of the instant Motion. First, Plaintiff filed the Motion more than ten

(10) business days after the entry of this Court’s August 4, 2006 Order, in violation

of L.R. 7.10.1

 Second, Plaintiff failed to file a brief supporting his Motion, in

violation of L.R. 7.5.2

 Plaintiff’s failure to file a supporting brief may technically

require this Court to deem the instant, untimely Motion withdrawn. However, as

we did in our August 4, 2006 Order (see doc. 37 at 6-8), in the interests of caution,

we will address the merits of the pending Motion. 

In the instant Motion, Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ failure to mail the

underlying motion, a Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 35), to Plaintiff’s new

address deprived Plaintiff of an adequate opportunity to respond to said Motion. 

(Rec. Doc. 38). He further asserts that this Court’s August 4, 2006 Order was a

default judgment in favor of Defendants, based on Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the

Motion. (Rec. Doc. 38). 

Case 4:04-cv-01603-JEJ Document 40 Filed 12/12/06 Page 4 of 6
5

However, as suggested above, on August 4, 2006, this Court did not, in fact,

enter a default judgment against Plaintiff. (See Rec. Doc. 37 at 5-6). In the

aforementioned Order, we indicated that “[a]lthough Defendants’ Motion is

deemed unopposed pursuant to L.R. 7.6 [due to Plaintiff’s failure to file an

opposing brief], it is prudent under the circumstances of this case to address the

merits of the pending Motion.” (Rec. Doc. 37 at 5-6). We then discussed in some

detail our rationale for granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment,

which was grounded in our conclusion that collateral estoppel bars Plaintiff’s

claim. (See Rec. Doc. 37 at 6-8). 

Thus, after a careful review of Plaintiff’s instant Motion (doc. 38), we find

that he has not demonstrated any one of the following necessary to alter or amend

our August 4, 2006 Order: (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 judgment on the pleadings; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law

or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Max’s Seafood Café, 176 F.3d at 677

(citing North River Ins. Co., 52 F.3d at 1218). 

“A motion for reconsideration is not to be used as a means to reargue matters

already argued and disposed of or as an attempt to relitigate a point of

disagreement between the Court and the litigant.” Abu-Jamal v. Horn, No. CIV. A.

Case 4:04-cv-01603-JEJ Document 40 Filed 12/12/06 Page 5 of 6
6

99-5089, 2001 WL 1609761, at *9 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (citations and internal quotation

marks omitted); see also Ogden v. Keystone Residence, 226 F. Supp. 2d 588, 606

(M.D. Pa. 2002). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (doc. 38) of the Court’s

August 4, 2006 Order (doc. 37) is denied.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (doc. 38) is DENIED.

s/ John E. Jones III

 John E. Jones III

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-01603-JEJ Document 40 Filed 12/12/06 Page 6 of 6