IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARCOS F. SANTIAGO, : CIVIL NO. 4:08-CV-0102

:

Plaintiff :

: (Judge Rambo)

v. :

:

ASSISTANT WARDEN EY, et al., :

:

Defendants :

M E M O R A N D U M

Before the court is a motion to reopen the captioned case filed pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). A motion under Rule 60(b)(6) may be

granted for any reason that justifies relief and made within a reasonable time. For

the reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied.

On January 16, 2008, Plaintiff, Marcos F. Santiago, a prisoner at USP

Allenwood at White Deer, Pennsylvania, filed a complaint against officers and

medical personnel at the prison, alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical

condition. The serious medical conditions alleged were sinusitis, headaches, chest

pains, dizziness and fainting.

Santiago was appointed pro bono counsel from the McCormick law

firm in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. On April 25, 2011, a joint Stipulation to

Withdraw Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed (Doc. 168), based on the fact that the

expert obtained by Plaintiff’s counsel would not supply a certificate of merit

necessary to proceed with Santiago’s case. Santiago agreed to the stipulation (Doc.

169). On April 26, 2011, this court approved the stipulation and terminated the case

(Doc. 168). 

Case 4:08-cv-00102-SHR-SF Document 179 Filed 08/03/15 Page 1 of 3
On May 7, 2011, Santiago, in a letter addressed to Judge McClure1

 (doc.

169), requested that the complaint not be dismissed. Because Santiago was still

represented by counsel on the record in this case, the court directed Santiago to

communicate with counsel to determine their representation of him (Doc. 170) and,

if counsel were no longer representing him, he was directed to file an appropriate

motion. On June 23, 2011, Santiago filed a motion to reopen (Doc. 171). Because

pro bono counsel was still on record as representing Santiago, the motion was not

given consideration. On June 27, 2011, counsel was directed to notify this court if

they intended to continue to represent Plaintiff or otherwise file a motion to

withdraw (Doc. 172). The motion to withdraw was filed on June 29, 2011 (Doc.

173) and was granted by order of June 30, 2011 (Doc. 174). 

On July 28, 2011, Santiago filed a motion to reopen (Doc. 175). By

order dated July 11, 2011 (Doc. 176), this second motion to reopen was denied as

moot and Santiago was directed to file a brief in support of his first motion to reopen

no later than July 25, 2011. He was advised that failure to file a timely brief in

support would result in the motion being deemed withdrawn. No brief was filed and,

by order dated August 2, 2011 (Doc. 177), the first motion to reopen (Doc. 171) was

deemed withdrawn. On July 10, 2015, the instant motion to reopen (Doc. 178) was

filed.

At some time during the progress of this case, Santiago was transferred

to USP Canaan. While there, he was seen by a heart specialist and underwent an

angiogram and stress test. The results showed Santiago suffered from dilated

cardiomyopathy (Doc. 178). This diagnosis was made in early June of 2011. 

1

This case was transferred to the undersigned on December 22, 2010.

2

Case 4:08-cv-00102-SHR-SF Document 179 Filed 08/03/15 Page 2 of 3
Santiago believes that an expert might now be able and willing to give a certificate of

merit so that his case can proceed.

As noted above, Plaintiff failed to file a brief in support of his motion to

reopen (Doc. 171). Since the order of August 2, 2011 (Doc. 177), no further

documents were filed in this action.2

A period of four years has passed since Santiago was given an

opportunity to file a proper motion and brief or a new complaint based on new

evidence that he believes supports his claim. This court does not consider this to be a

reasonable time under Rule 60. Santiago does not set forth any reason for not

complying with the order of July 11, 2011 or why he has waited four years to renew

his motion.

The motion will be denied. An appropriate order will be issued.

 s/Sylvia H. Rambo 

 United States District Judge

Dated: August 3, 2015.

2

While the court perhaps erred in not directing Santiago to file a new complaint, the error

was not prejudicial in light of the fact that he was given an opportunity to file a brief setting forth his

argument to reopen the case.

3

Case 4:08-cv-00102-SHR-SF Document 179 Filed 08/03/15 Page 3 of 3