United States District Court, D. Delaware
Michele D. Allen, ALLEN & ASSOCIATES, Wilmington,
Delaware Counsel for Plaintiff
K. Durstein, III, Wilson B. Davis, STATE OF DELAWARE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Wilmington, Delaware Counsel for
CONNOLLY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Robert Metzgar sued five defendants for alleged violations of
his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of
the United States Constitution: the State of Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
(DNREC); Shawn M. Garvin, the Secretary of DNREC;
Garvin's predecessor, David Small; Drew T. Aydelotte, the
Chief of DNREC's Division of Fish & Wildlife Natural
Resources Police Department (the FWPD); and Brian Pollock, a
Captain with the FWPD. D.I. 4. On July 9, 2019, the Court
granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs
Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
D.I. 11; D.I. 12. Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration of
the Court's dismissal decision under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e). D.I. 13.
standard for obtaining relief under Rule 59(e) is difficult
to meet." Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo
Inc., 2015 WL 4919975, at * 1 (D. Del. Aug. 18, 2015). A
court should exercise its discretion to alter or amend its
judgment only if the movant demonstrates one of the
following: (1) a change in the controlling law; (2) a
"need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to
prevent manifest injustice"; or (3) availability of new
evidence not available when the judgment was granted.
Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel Lou-Ann, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). A motion
for reconsideration is "not properly grounded on a
request that a court rethink a decision already made and may
not be used as a means to argue new facts or issues that
inexcusably were not presented to the court in the matter
previously decided." Butamax, 2015 WL 4919975,
at *1 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Plaintiff states that he is seeking reconsideration because
the Court "misunderstood the application of law"
and reconsideration is needed to prevent manifest injustice,
D.I. 13 ¶¶ 4, 8, he merely repeats the arguments he
made when opposing Defendants' motion to dismiss: that he
was "not an 'at-will' employee but rather he
ha[d] a 'property' interest in his continued
employment which was created and defined by the terms of the
Delaware Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights,"
id ¶11; D.I. 5 at 7-9; D.I. 13 at 5-7. Such
arguments do not warrant reconsideration.
should not be granted where it would merely accomplish
repetition of arguments that were or should have been
presented to the court previously." Karr v.
Castle, 768 F.Supp. 1087, 1093 (D. Del. 1991). Plaintiff
has not asserted that the Court's decision was based on a
clear error of law or fact. Nor has he presented any evidence
that the Court's decision resulted or will result in
manifest injustice. Instead, Plaintiff, at most, asserts that
it would have been reasonable for the Court to rule in his
favor on the motion to dismiss and asks the Court to
reconsider arguments he already presented to it.
"Reconsideration is not permitted simply to allow a
second bite at the apple." Bhatnagar v. Surrendra
Overseas Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220, 1231 (3d Cir. 1995).
Without a showing of clear error or manifest injustice, the
Court will not reconsider Plaintiffs claim that his
employment was a property interest protected by the
also asserts that the Court misapplied the law when it
concluded that Plaintiff did not have a liberty interest
under the Fourteenth Amendment, but he provides no arguments
or evidence in support of that conclusory statement. The
Court will therefore not reconsider Plaintiffs liberty
the Court will deny Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration.
Court will enter an order consistent with this ...