United States District Court, D. Delaware
Sandra Harmon appears pro se. She commenced this
lawsuit to protect her private property and preserve her
right to restore her home located in Rehoboth Beach,
Delaware, that she owns with Leroy William Harmon Heirs and
Lefton Harmon, Sr. (D.I. 1; D.I. 1-1 at p.8). Plaintiff
alleges violations of her rights under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to peaceful enjoyment of the property
and unlawful tactics by Sussex County government officials.
On June 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for emergency
relief, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent a
Sheriff's sale scheduled for June 19, 2018, in Sussex
County, Delaware. (D.I. 27). The Court denied the motion on
June 15, 2018. (D.I. 33, 34). Plaintiff moves for
reconsideration. (D.I. 43). She has also filed a combined
motion to find defense counsel in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1621 and request for counsel (D.I. 37), a motion for
judgment as a matter of law (D.I. 47), and an amended motion
for judgment as a matter of law (D.I. 50). Briefing on the
matters is complete.
asks the Court to find defense counsel in violation of 18
U.S.C. §1621. The motion will be denied. Section 1621 is
the federal criminal perjury statute. Plaintiff takes
exception to information and exhibits relied upon by defense
counsel and contends they are perjurious. The Court has
reviewed the evidence of record, and it does not support
importantly, however, Plaintiff cannot seek to impose
criminal liability upon defense counsel, as she lacks
standing to proceed. See Allen v. Administrative Office
of Pennsylvania Courts, 270 Fed.Appx. 149, 150 (3d Cir.
2008); see United States v. Friedland, 83 F.3d 1531,
1539 (3d Cir. 1996) ("[T]he United States Attorney is
responsible for the prosecution of all criminal cases within
his or her district."). The decision of whether to
prosecute, and what criminal charges to bring, generally
rests with the prosecutor. See United States v.
Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 124 (1979).
motion to find defense counsel in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1621 also requests counsel. (See D.I. 37 at ¶
19). The request will be denied. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(1), the Court may request an attorney to represent
any person unable to afford counsel. Section 1915(e)(1)
confers the district court with the power to request that
counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma
pauperis. Plaintiff paid the filing fee and has not
sought in forma pauperis status. She does not
qualify for counsel under § 1915.
moves for reconsideration of the June 15, 2018 Order that
denied her motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent a
Sheriff's sale schedule for June 19, 2018 in Sussex
County, Delaware. (See D.I. 34). Plaintiff argues
the Court erred in abstaining under the Younger
abstention doctrine because there was never a complaint
filed, nor summons issued and served on her or others, and
the motion should have been granted. (D.I. 43). Defendants
respond that the Younger abstention was not the sole
reason the motion was denied, notes that the Court considered
the merits of the motion and found Plaintiff failed to meet
the requisites for injunctive relief, and Plaintiff did not
address the alternative grounds for denial of the motion for
injunctive relief in her motion for reconsideration. (D.I.
44). The motion for reconsideration will be denied.
purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to "correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann,
Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
"A proper Rule 59(e) motion . . . must rely on one of
three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law;
(2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to
correct clear error of law or [to] prevent manifest
injustice." Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666,
669 (3d Cir. 2010).
Court has reviewed the filings and its memorandum opinion and
order that denied the motion for injunctive relief. In
addition to addressing abstention under the Younger
abstention doctrine, the Court conducted an alternative
analysis to determine if injunctive relief was appropriate.
The Court thoroughly addressed the requisites for injunctive
relief and found that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden to
show a reasonable probability that she would prevail on the
merits. Therefore, injunctive relief was not appropriate. The
Court finds that based upon the law and the facts, Plaintiff
has failed to demonstrate any of the grounds necessary to
warrant a reconsideration of the Court's June 15, 2018
memorandum opinion and order denying her motion for
filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law and an amended
motion for judgment as a matter of law. (D.I. 47, D.I. 50).
The motions will be dismissed as premature.
does not indicate which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure she
relies upon in filing her motions. Rule 50 is inapplicable as
no trial has taken place. Rule 56 is premature based upon the
May 31, 2018 Scheduling Order that provides that no case
dispositive motion under Rule 56 may be filed more than ten
days prior to February 1, 2018 without leave of Court.
(See D.I. 26). If there is some other rule Plaintiff
is relying upon, it is not apparent to me which it is.
above reasons, the Court will: (1) deny Plaintiff's
combined motion to find defense counsel in violation of
Section 1621 of Title 18 of the United States Code and
request for counsel (D.I. 37) and motion for reconsideration
(D.I. 43); and (2) dismiss as moot Plaintiff's motion for
judgment as a matter of law and amended motion for judgment
as a matter of law (D.I. 47, 50). An appropriate order will
 The background is set forth in the
June 15, 2018 Memorandum. (See D.I. 33).
 State Court records indicate the
property was sold to the highest bidder on June 19, 2018,
that Plaintiff has filed objections to the sale, and that the
matter is stayed pending resolution of the cases Plaintiff
has filed in this Court. See Department of Finance of
Sussex County v. Harmon, Civ. Act. No. S18T-01-002 (Del.
Super. 2018) at ...