Filali v. Harrisburg AL Operations LLC

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SAMI EL FILALI,
Plaintiff,
v.
HARRISBURG AL OPERATIONS
LLC,
Defendant.
CIVIL NO. 1:23-cv-00133
(KANE, J.)
(LATELLA, M.J.)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se Plaintiff Sami El Filali filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
our Order denying his Request to Appoint a Representative. As set
forth herein, because Plaintiff has not satisfied the “stringent” standard
for reconsideration, his motion will be denied.
I. 	BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint on January 24,
2023. (Doc. 1). At the time the Complaint was filed, Plaintiff was
represented by counsel. (Id.). Defendant answered the Complaint on
April 17, 2023. (Doc. 8). Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw
as counsel on October 11, 2023, indicating that Plaintiff had terminated
him. (Doc. 18). The court granted that motion on October 17, 2023 and
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 90 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 8

2
provided Plaintiff with thirty (30) days to find new counsel or advise the
Court of his intention to proceed pro se. (Doc. 21). On November 21,
2023, the Court issued another Order indicating that Plaintiff failed to
comply with its October 17, 2023 Order and directing Plaintiff to notify
the Court by December 1, 2023 as to whether he retained new counsel
or intended to proceed pro se. (Doc. 23). On November 30, 2023,
Plaintiff filed a letter to the docket stating that “[T]he Counsel [sic] of
American Islamic Relation is my new counsel in this case.” (Doc. 24).
However, the following day, December 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed another
letter to the docket indicating that he would be proceeding pro se.1
(Doc. 25).
The matter was referred to Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom for
pretrial management on December 20, 2023. Defendant filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment and supporting brief on May 14, 2025. (Doc.
1 Defense counsel filed a letter the same day indicating that he
unsuccessfully 	attempted 	to 	contact 	an 	attorney 	at 	the 	Counsel 	of
American Islamic Relations and requesting that the Court order new
counsel to file a Notice of Appearance by the close of business on
December 1, 2023. (Doc. 26). On December 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed email
correspondence between himself and an attorney with the Council on
American-Islamic Relations. 	(Doc. 28). 	The email string included an
email providing that the Council on American-Islamic Relations would
not be representing Plaintiff in this matter. (Id.).
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 90 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 8

3
66). On June 10, 2025, the matter was reassigned to the undersigned
magistrate judge for pretrial management. Plaintiff filed a brief in
opposition to summary judgment on August 19, 2025 and then filed a
request for a copy of a deposition on August 21, 2025. (Docs. 70, 71).
Defendant filed a reply brief in further support of summary judgment
on September 2, 2025. (Doc. 72).
Plaintiff then filed a “Request to appoint a representative” on
September 8, 2025. (Doc. 74). On that same date, he filed a “Motion to
compel the defendant to release the security camera recording tapes.”
(Doc. 75). On September 16, 2025, he filed a “Memorandum and Brief
Summary Defendant’s False Allegatio[n]s and Misleading Facts.” (Doc.
76).
We issued a Memorandum (Doc. 78) and Order (Doc. 79) on
October 30, 2025, directing Plaintiff to provide to the Court for in
camera review any (1) documentation from a public agency or court of
record that he has been adjudicated incompetent, or (2) documentation
from a medical provider that the type of mental illness he is being
treated for renders him legally incompetent, to the extent such
documentation exists. On November 20, 2025, having received no
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 90 Filed 12/23/25 Page 3 of 8

4
response from Plaintiff, we filed an additional Order again directing
Plaintiff to provide the specified documentation on or before December
4, 2025. (Doc. 80).
On December 1, 2025, the Court received documents from Plaintiff
for in camera review. After reviewing those submissions, we issued a
Memorandum Opinion (Doc. 82) and Order (Doc. 83) denying Plaintiff’s
Request to Appoint a Representative (74). On December 22, 2025,
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of that Order (Doc. 89),
which we will now address.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
The Third Circuit has instructed that the purpose of a motion for
reconsideration is to “correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present
newly discovered evidence.” 	Harsco v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d
Cir. 1985). Thus, reconsideration is only properly granted where the
party moving for reconsideration shows “(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
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 90 Filed 12/23/25 Page 4 of 8

5
injustice.” 	Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou–Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176
F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
Importantly, “[a] motion for reconsideration is not properly
grounded on a request that the Court simply rethink a decision it has
already made.” 	Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C. v. Scout Petroleum,
LLC, 73 F. Supp. 3d 488, 491 (M.D. Pa. 2014), aff'd sub nom.
Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC v. Scout Petroleum, LLC, 809 F.3d 746 (3d
Cir. 2016) (quoting Douris v. Schweiker, 229 F.Supp.2d 391, 408 (E.D.
Pa. 2002)). “The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is a
stringent one.... [A] mere disagreement with the court does not
translate into a clear error of law.” 	Mpala v. Smith, CIV. 3:CV–06–841,
2007 WL 136750, *2 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2007) (Kosik, J.) aff'd, 241 F.
App’x. 3 (3d Cir. 2007). “Because federal courts have a strong interest
in the finality of judgments, motions for reconsideration should be
granted sparingly.” 	Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc., 884 F.
Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995).
III. 	DISCUSSION
As the Court noted in Snider v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections,
“[t]here is no uniform approach to determining incompetence in civil
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 90 Filed 12/23/25 Page 5 of 8

6
actions.” No. 15-951, 2019 WL 4793056, *10 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2019).
The decision as to whether to appoint a representative “rests with the
sound discretion of the court.” 	Richards v. Duke University, 166 F.
App’x 595, 598 (3d Cir. 2006). 	Multiple courts have determined that in
the absence of evidence that a court has adjudicated an individual
incompetent or medical records establishing that an individual is being
or has been treated for mental illness of the type that would render him
or her legally incompetent, appointment of a guardian ad litem is not
necessary. 	See, e.g., Tejada v. DelBalso, No. 3:18-cv-01096, 2018 WL
6047081, *1 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 2018); Monroe v. Bryan, 881 F. Supp.2d
623, 628 (D. Del. 2012). Further, even where a party suffers from
mental illness, courts have declined to appoint a representative where
there is no evidence that the party is incompetent. 	See, Tejada, 2018
WL 6047081, at *1; Monroe, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 628; Snider, 2019 WL
4793056, at *10-11; Richardson v. Fustine, No. 1:19-CV-2132, 2020 WL
13738991, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 7, 2020).
As set forth in our prior Memorandum Opinion, while the medical
records provided by Mr. El Filali confirm that he is struggling with
mental illness, there is no evidence that he is incompetent. Nothing in
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 90 Filed 12/23/25 Page 6 of 8

7
Mr. El Filali’s Motion for Reconsideration persuades us otherwise. In
support of his Motion, Mr. El Filali did not assert any intervening
change in controlling law. Nor did he present any new evidence that
was not previously available. Rather, Plaintiff referenced records that
he previously submitted and attached information that appears to come
from an AI generated search indicating, in part, that Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder “can absolutely cause incompetence and incapacitation
in Pennsylvania.” (See Docs. 89 at 1; 89-1). While that may be true, we
previously directed Plaintiff to submit for in camera review
“documentation from a medical provider that the type of mental illness
he is being treated for renders him legally incompetent.” (See Doc. 80).
The records that Plaintiff provided in response to that Order do not
establish that the type of mental illness he is being treated for render
him incompetent. While it is true that Plaintiff may be receiving
outpatient care for certain psychiatric illnesses, no medical provider has
indicated that those illnesses render him incompetent. Finally,
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that reconsideration is necessary here to
correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 90 Filed 12/23/25 Page 7 of 8

8
Accordingly, his motion for reconsideration will be denied. 	Max's
Seafood Café ex rel. Lou–Ann, Inc., 176 F.3d at 677.
I. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 89) will be denied. An order follows.
Dated: December 23, 2025 	s/ Leo A. Latella
LEO A. LATELLA
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:23-cv-00133-YK Document 90 Filed 12/23/25 Page 8 of 8