Lewis v. Arce et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NA-QUAN LEWIS, 	: Civil No. 3:24-CV-2216
:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	:
: (Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom)
JOHN ACRE, et al., 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I. 	Introduction
This case comes before us on a motion for reconsideration by the
plaintiff, Na-Quan Lewis. 1 	Lewis has moved under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) to “correct clear legal error and prevent
manifest injustice.” 2 	He purports to have identified several errors
entitling him to relief under these rules.3 	For the following reasons, we
will deny the motion.
1 Doc. 57.
2
Id.
3
Id. at 2.
Case 3:24-cv-02216-DFB Document 59 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 11

2
II. Background
Lewis 	commenced 	the 	above-captioned 	action 	against 	the
defendants asserting violations of his constitutional rights under the
Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. 4 	Lewis
thereafter filed an amended complaint, which the defendants moved to
dismiss. 5 	We granted the defendants’ motions, finding that Lewis’
amended complaint failed to state constitutional claims against the
defendants, 	and 	permitted 	him 	a 	final 	opportunity 	to 	amend 	his
complaint. 6
Lewis filed a second amended complaint, which asserted virtually
identical allegations against the defendants. 7 	The defendants again
filed motions to dismiss. 8 	Having concluded that the second amended
complaint 	again 	failed 	to 	state 	constitutional 	claims 	against 	the
defendants and recognizing further amendment would be futile, we
4 Doc. 1.
5 Docs. 18, 28, 30-31.
6 Doc. 43.
7 Doc. 45,
8 Docs. 46-47, 49.
Case 3:24-cv-02216-DFB Document 59 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 11

3
granted the defendant’s motions and dismissed the second amended
complaint with prejudice. 9
The plaintiff has now filed a motion to reconsider under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b).10 	For the following reasons, we
will deny the motion.
III. 	Discussion
A. Motion to Reconsider Under Rule 59(e) – Standard of Review
The plaintiff has moved for this court to reconsider our judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which permits a court
to “alter or amend a judgment [.]” 11 	A motion to alter or amend the
judgment under Rule 59(e) is “a ‘device to relitigate the original issue’
decided by the district court, and used to allege legal error.” 12 	Thus, the
court may alter a judgment if the moving party shows at least one of three
things: 	“(1) 	an 	intervening 	change 	in 	the 	controlling 	law; 	(2) 	the
availability of new evidence that was not available when the court
9 Doc. 55.
10 Doc. 57.
11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
12
United States v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282, 288 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting
Smith v. Evans, 853 F.2d 155, 158–59 (3d Cir. 1988)).
Case 3:24-cv-02216-DFB Document 59 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 11

4
granted the motion [ ]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or
fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” 13 	While the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals has “never adopted strict or precise definitions for ‘clear error
of law or fact’ and ‘manifest injustice’” in this context, it has “suggested
that there is substantial, if not complete, overlap between these two
concepts” and that to succeed on such a showing requires a movant to
identify “a ‘direct, obvious, [or] observable error’ . . . of at least some
importance to the larger proceedings.”14
A 59(e) motion “is not to be used as a means to reargue matters
already argued and disposed of or as an attempt to relitigate a point of
disagreement 	between 	the 	Court 	and 	the 	litigant.” 15 	Similarly,
“reconsideration motions may not be used to raise new arguments or
present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of
judgment.”16
13
Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669,
677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citation omitted).
14
In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., 904 F.3d 298, 311–12 (3d Cir.
2018) (citation modified).
15
	Ogden v. Keystone Residence, 226 F. Supp. 2d 588, 606 (M.D. Pa.
2002).
16
Hill v. Tammac Corp., No. 1:05-CV-1148, 2006 WL 529044, at *2 (M.D.
Case 3:24-cv-02216-DFB Document 59 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 11

5
B. Motion to Reconsider Under Rule 60(b)(1) – Standard of Review
The plaintiff has also moved for reconsideration of the judgment
against him pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.17 	As the Supreme Court has explained, Rule “60(b) permits
‘a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of his
case, under a limited set of circumstances.’”18 	Those circumstances are
described 	in 	Rule 	60(b)’s 	enumerated sub 	parts, 	and 	“[u]nder 	Rule
60(b)(1), 	a 	party 	may 	seek 	relief 	based 	on 	‘mistake, 	inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect.’” 19 	Legal error by a judge qualifies as
such a mistake.20
Pa. Mar. 3, 2006) (
citing McDowell Oil Serv., Inc. v. Interstate Fire &
Cas. Co., 817 F. Supp. 538, 541 (M.D. Pa. 1993)).
17 Lewis does not identify which portion of Rule 60(b) he believes entitles
him to relief. 	We construe his motion as alleging “mistake,” in that
Lewis has moved to “correct legal error [.]” 	Mistake can lead to relief
from judgement under Rule 60(b)(1), and so we analyze the instant
motion as if made under that subsection.
18
Kemp v. United States, 596 U.S. 528, 533 (2022) (
quoting Gonzalez v.
Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528 (2005)).
19
Id.
20
Id. at 535.
Case 3:24-cv-02216-DFB Document 59 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 11

6
C. The Motion to Reconsider Will Be Denied.
Lewis raises 24 grounds for reconsideration. 	We find that none of
them 	demonstrate 	reconsideration 	under 	Rules 	59(e) 	or 	60(b)(1) 	is
appropriate here, and so we will deny the motion.
We consider Rule 59(e) first. 	As discussed above, there are three
grounds for a motion under this rule. 	Lewis has not alleged new law or
that previously unavailable facts have emerged. 	Rather, his arguments
are based on “the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent
manifest injustice.” 21 	Below, we consider Lewis’ arguments and find
none identify clear error or manifest injustice.
Lewis first argues that this court’s ruling constituted clear error
because 	the 	second 	amended 	complaint 	met 	the 	federal 	pleading
requirements pursuant to binding legal authority. 22 	Specifically, Lewis
argues,
inter alia, that the circumstantial timeline supports a claim of
conspiracy; that the court misapplied the judicial immunity doctrine;
that his arrest, court appearances, and charges constitute a seizure in
support of a malicious prosecution claim; that he pled distinct procedural
21
Max’s Seafood Café, 176 F.3d at 677.
22 Doc. 57 (Grounds 1, 3-9, 17, 19-21).
Case 3:24-cv-02216-DFB Document 59 Filed 01/12/26 Page 6 of 11

7
violations that should not be brought under the Fourth Amendment; that
his Equal Protection claim survives as a “class of one” claim; and that his
Eighth 	and 	Thirteenth 	Amendment 	claims 	were 	plausibly 	pled.
However, each of these arguments were either already raised or could
have been raised before the court on disposition of the motions to
dismiss. 23 	As noted above, it is impermissible to use a motion for
reconsideration to simply rehash arguments previously brought before
the court and were rejected.24 	Lewis does not identify a clear legal or
factual error that we made in rejecting his arguments, and so these
grounds for reconsideration are unavailing.
Lewis further argues that this court erred by dismissing his claims
despite the defendants’ own admission of events. 25 	This argument is
novel to the motion to reconsider and could have been raised in response
to the motions to dismiss. 	Lewis failed to do so. 	Thus, it is enough for
us to say that “reconsideration motions may not be used to raise new
23
See Docs. 51, 53-54.
24
	Ogden v. Keystone Residence, 226 F. Supp. 2d 588, 606 (M.D. Pa.
2002).
25 Doc. 57 (Grounds 13-14).
Case 3:24-cv-02216-DFB Document 59 Filed 01/12/26 Page 7 of 11

8
arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the
entry of judgment.” 26
Lewis 	also 	asserts 	clear 	error 	in 	that 	the 	court 	improperly
conducted a docket search of Luzerne County records and improperly
dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice. 27 	Yet, the
cases Lewis points to do not support his desired result. 	For example,
Lewis cites to
Sands v. McCormick 28 for the proposition that conducting
a docket search to reject claims constitutes forbidden “extra-record fact-
finding.” 29 	However, review of the case indicates the opposite. 	In
Sands, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals states, “in ruling on a motion
to dismiss, a district court relies on the complaint, attached exhibits, and
matters 	of 	public 	record.” 30 	It 	follows 	that 	“judicial 	proceedings
constitute public records and that courts may take judicial notice of
26
	Hill, 2006 WL 529044, at *2 (citing
	McDowell Oil Serv., Inc. v.
Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 817 F. Supp. 538, 541 (M.D. Pa. 1993)).
27 Doc. 57 (Grounds 2, 10, 18).
28 502 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2007).
29 Doc. 57 at 3.
30
Sands, 502 F.3d at 268 (citing
Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White
Consol. Industries, Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993)).
Case 3:24-cv-02216-DFB Document 59 Filed 01/12/26 Page 8 of 11

9
another court’s opinions.” 31 	Likewise,
	Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote
Concrete Contractors, Inc. 32 and
Alston v. Parker 33 both recognize that
pro se litigants should generally be permitted to amend their complaints
“unless an amendment would be inequitable or futile.” 34 	Lewis was
provided ample opportunity to correct the defects previously cited and
failed to do so. 	Accordingly, we find no clear error was made.
Lewis generally points to various legal authority to which he
contends the court improperly relied upon.35 	Specifically, he argues that
the court erred in relying upon irrelevant and non-binding authority in
forming our analysis. 	Lewis has not shown that our analysis was a
“direct, certain, [or] obvious error” as is required for reconsideration. 36
Indeed, it is not direct, certain, nor obvious error to apply logic from
nonconflicting persuasive authority.
31
Id. (citing
Southern Cross Overseas Agencies v. Wah Kwong Shipping
Group Ltd., 181 F.3d 410, 426 (3d Cir. 1999)).
32 482 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2007).
33 363 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2004).
34
Id. at 235.
35 Doc. 57 (Grounds 16, 22).
36
In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., 904 F.3d at 312.
Case 3:24-cv-02216-DFB Document 59 Filed 01/12/26 Page 9 of 11

10
Moreover, Lewis asserts the court caused prejudice in failing to
timely rule on his motion for default judgment, contradicted itself by its
prior order granting his motion to amend, and failed to act impartially
and provide a reasoned ruling. 37 	We conclude that none of these
grounds 	entitle 	Lewis 	to 	reconsideration. 	Lewis 	next 	claims
reconsideration is required to prevent manifest injustice because the
court’s dismissal left him “homeless, without redress, and deprived of
[his] rights.”38 	Lewis presents no law in support of this argument.
Finally, because Lewis also moved under Rule 60(b)(1) for relief
from this judgment, we consider if there has been a showing of “mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”39 	As discussed, “mistake”
includes a judge’s error of law. 40 	This is a heavy burden to carry. 41 	We
conclude the analysis above suffices to show no error of law was made
here, and Lewis has not argued any of the other grounds under Rule 60(b)
37 Doc. 57 (Grounds 11-12, 15, 23).
38 Doc. 57 (Ground 24).
39 Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(1).
40
Kemp, 596 U.S. at 534.
41
Plisco v. Union R.R. Co., 379 F.2d 15, 17 (3d Cir. 1967).
Case 3:24-cv-02216-DFB Document 59 Filed 01/12/26 Page 10 of 11

11
apply, nor do we see any reason to believe such grounds exist. 	For all
these reasons, we will deny the motion for reconsideration.
IV. 	Conclusion
Having 	found 	that 	Lewis 	failed 	to 	identify 	grounds 	for
reconsideration under either Rule 59(e) or 60(b), we will DENY the
motion and decline to reopen the case.
So ordered this 12th day of January 2026.
s/ Daryl F. Bloom
Daryl F. Bloom
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:24-cv-02216-DFB Document 59 Filed 01/12/26 Page 11 of 11