Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-CV-5759
September 25, 2003
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Peter W. Sauers brought this action, pro se. against Defendant Bensalem Township ("the Township") on November 15, 2001, alleging violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. On April 5, 2002, this Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss but gave Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on June 3, 2002. By Order dated March 5, 2003, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order on March 14, 2003. Because there are no grounds for reconsideration and allowing a second amendment would be futile, the Court will deny the Motion.
I. Background
At all relevant times, Plaintiff was the owner of property located at 430 Elm Avenue, Bensalem, PA. He contends that: the adjacent property's use as a commercial auto body shop violates Bensalem Township's zoning laws; he complained to the Township's Department of Licenses and Inspections in 1995, but no action was taken; he was deprived of an opportunity to challenge the alleged zoning violations because the Township failed to give him notice of the adjacent property owner's applications for "non-conforming use" and for an easement / variance creating a paved parking area; and the Township failed to hold a hearing on either of these applications.
On May 13, 1996, Plaintiff voiced his complaints about various matters concerning the adjacent property at a Township Council meeting, but the Council allegedly was instructed not to respond. Plaintiff further alleges that Township officials created fraudulent, back-dated documents to cover up the "non-conforming use" of the adjacent property.
In 1998, Plaintiff notified the Environmental Protection Agency that there were underground tanks at the adjacent property that "may" be leaking. He contends that it was the Township's responsibility to test for contamination, but it failed to do so. He also makes general allegations that the Township deprived him of equal access to municipal / police services by failing to respond to his complaints regarding the illegal zoning practices. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Township officials, private realtors, lawyers, and detectives have "acted out of their scope of authority" and have conspired to violate the zoning ordinances, resulting in a deprivation of his civil rights.
By Order dated April 8, 2002, this Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the original Complaint failed to state a claim for violation of due process or for conspiracy to violate civil rights. (See Mem. and Order dated April 8, 2002 at 3.)
In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of his real and personal property when he and his wife were forced to move out of their home because of the "non-conforming use" of the adjacent property. The Amended Complaint includes nine counts: Counts I through IV allege due process violations; Counts V through VIII assert claims of conspiracy to violate civil rights, and Count IX alleges an equal protection violation.
In Count III, Plaintiff also alleges, without explanation, that Defendant has violated 15 U.S.C. § 1125, a provision of federal trademark law. Because the Amended Complaint is devoid of any allegations relating to use of misleading marks, names, or symbols in commerce, the Court will dismiss any claim under this statute. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125.
II. Legal Standards
A. Reconsideration of a Court Order
"The purpose of a motion for reconsideration . . . is to correct manifest errors of law or to present newly discovered evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros. 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (quotingHarsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki. 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985)). Where a timely motion to amend judgment is filed under Rule 59(e), the Rule 15 and Rule 59 inquiries turn on the same factors. Cureton v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n. 252 F.3d 267, 272 (3d Cir. 2001). "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." N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995).
"Because federal courts have a strong interest in the finality of judgments, motions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly."Horizon Unlimited. Inc. v. Silva. Civ. A. No. 97-7430, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 275, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2001) (quoting Continental Cas. Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc., 884 F. Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995)). "It is improper on a motion for reconsideration to ask the Court to rethink what it had already thought through — rightly or wrongly." Wilson v. Seven Seventeen HB Philadelphia Corp. No. 2. Civ. A. No. 99-1729, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5470, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 7, 2001) (quoting Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon. 836 F. Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
B. Motion to Amend the Complaint
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) states in relevant part: "[A] party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); see also Bechtel v. Robinson. 886 F.2d 644, 652 (3d Cir. 1989) (emphasizing the "strong liberality . . . in allowing amendments under Rule 15(a)"); Katzenmover v. City of Reading. 158 F. Supp.2d49l, 497 (E.D. Pa. 2001) ("An applicant seeking leave to amend a pleading has the burden of showing that justice requires the amendment"). The decision to grant or deny leave to amend is committed to the sound discretion of the Court. Gay v. Petsock. 917 F.2d 768, 772 (3d Cir. 1990); Heyl Patterson International. Inc. v. F.D. Rich. Inc., 663 F.2d 419, 425 (3d Cir. 1981). A district court has the discretion to deny a request for leave to amend a complaint "if it is apparent from the record that (1) the moving party has demonstrated undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motives; (2) the amendment would be futile; or (3) the amendment would prejudice the other party." Lake v. Arnold. 232 F.3d 360, 373 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Foman v. Davis. 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
III. Analysis
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint and for Reconsideration of Court's 3/5/03 Order reiterates the claims made in his earlier pleadings. His argument that he could not have complied with the Court's order without time travel is without merit. Plaintiff had actual notice of the non-conforming use of the property. Had he acted promptly, he would have been able to avail himself of the appeals mechanisms designed by the Zoning Board. His failure to do so precludes any procedural due process claims.
Plaintiff has not directed the Court to any additional evidence that he was or is a member of a protected class. Accordingly, the Court properly applied rational basis review in its Order dismissing the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has not presented the Court with any reason to doubt its previous application of that standard.
Furthermore, the Court has already granted Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint once. Plaintiff presents no reason that a second amended Complaint would be anymore sufficient than the first.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint and for
Reconsideration of its March 5, 2003 Order. An appropriate Order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of September, 2003, upon consideration of Plaintiff s Motion To Amend Complaint and for Reconsideration of the Court's Order (docket no. 14) and Defendant's Response thereto, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court shall notify the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that no further motions are pending.