Bennett v. Heap

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMAL BENNETT, 	: 	Civ. No. 4:25-CV-1349
:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	:
: 	(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
:
THOMAS HEAP, 	:
:
Defendant. 	:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. 	Factual Background and Procedural History
Jamal Bennett is a state inmate and a prolific, if prodigiously unsuccessful,
pro 	se 	litigant.1 Most 	recently, 	Bennett 	sued 	Thomas 	Heap, 	a 	state 	court
administrator making allegations which stemmed from a prior, unsuccessful effort
at pro se litigation, a state criminal case in which Bennett represented himself and
was convicted at trial. The factual background of these state charges was aptly
summarized by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in its decision affirming Bennett’s
conviction. At that time the Court explained that:
1 Commonwealth v. Bennett, No. 1435 MDA 2022, 2025 WL 2542683, at *1 (Pa.
Super. Ct. Sept. 4, 2025); Bennett v. Shoemaker, No. 1:22-CV-0354, 2024 WL
3969682, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2024); Bennett v. Shoemaker, No. 1:22-CV-0354,
2023 WL 5434769 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 23, 2023); Bennett v. Cnty. of Lycoming, No.
1:22-CV-0838, 2022 WL 4079622 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 6, 2022).
Case 4:25-cv-01349-MCC Document 32 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 6

On 	March 	18, 	2021, 	a 	confidential 	informant 	(CI) 	arranged 	a
transaction to purchase cocaine by calling a cellular telephone number.
[Bennett] 	... 	arrived 	at 	the 	meeting 	location. 	Detective 	Jonathan
Rachael, in an undercover capacity, purchased 8 vials of crack cocaine
from [Bennett] for $200.00 in pre-recorded and identified $20.00 bills.
[Bennett] retrieved the vials from a plastic grocery bag that contained
additional controlled substances. By Information filed on September
17, 2021 in CR-1141-2021, the Commonwealth charged [Bennett] with
Delivery of a Controlled Substance (cocaine) and Criminal Use of a
Communication Facility.
After [Bennett] left the residence where the transaction occurred, he
drove away in a black Honda Accord and stopped at a convenience
store. Other officers, having observed [Bennett] enter and leave the
residence where the drug purchase occurred, followed [Bennett] to the
convenience store. [Bennett] entered the store, purchased some items
and returned to his vehicle. The officers removed [Bennett] from the
black Honda Accord and arrested him on a warrant in another case.
[Bennett] was searched incident to arrest. The officers discovered
$180.00 of the $200 in pre-recorded buy money. The plastic grocery
bag was on the passenger seat of the vehicle. Officers impounded the
vehicle, obtained a search warrant, and searched the vehicle. Inside the
plastic grocery bag[,] the officers discovered a Glock 43 firearm, 32
vials 	of 	crack 	cocaine, 	97 	blue 	waxen 	bags 	of 	fentanyl, 	and
approximately 3.25 grams of methamphetamine. By Information filed
on April 23, 2021 in CR-478-2021, the Commonwealth charged
[Bennett] with three counts of Possession with Intent to Deliver a
Controlled Substance (PWID) and one count of Persons Not to Possess
a Firearm, as [Bennett] had a prior conviction from December 15,
1996[,] which made him ineligible to possess firearms.
Commonwealth v. Bennett, No. 1435 MDA 2022, 2025 WL 2542683, at *1 (Pa.
Super. Ct. Sept. 4, 2025) (footnotes omitted).
Bennett’s federal lawsuit rested upon a curious and unpersuasive premise,
alleging that the affirmance of his conviction was not a product of his own
misconduct but was the result of Mr. Heap’s office failing to include some items
Case 4:25-cv-01349-MCC Document 32 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 6

that Bennett wished to incorporate into the record on appeal. Alleging that Mr.
Heap’s conduct was part of some larger, amorphous conspiracy, Bennett asserted
that the failure to include these items in the record on appeal resulted in his unjust
conviction, violated the Pennsylvania Constitution and state criminal laws, and
constituted violations of the First, Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
On January 29, 2026, we dismissed this complaint, (Docs. 29 and 30), finding
that Bennett’s pleading was irreparably flawed in the following six ways: First,
Bennett’s Federal Constitutional claims failed; second, Heap was entitled to Quasi-
Judicial immunity; third, Bennett’s references to criminal statutes did not provide
grounds for action by this Court; fourth, the Pennsylvania Constitution does not
provide for a private right of action for damages; fifth, Bennett’s civil conspiracy
claim failed as a matter pf law; and sixth, to the extent that Bennett was suing the
State Court system for damages his claims failed.
Undeterred, Bennett has now filed a motion to reconsider this ruling, which
simply parrots the arguments which we previously considered and rejected. (Doc.
31). Upon consideration, for the reasons set forth below this motion is DENIED.
Case 4:25-cv-01349-MCC Document 32 Filed 02/25/26 Page 3 of 6

II. 	Discussion
The legal standards that govern motions to reconsider are both clear, and
clearly compelling. “The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp.
v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Typically, such a motion should only
be granted in three, narrowly defined circumstances, where there is either : “(1) [an]
intervening 	change 	in 	controlling 	law, 	(2) 	availability 	of 	new 	evidence 	not
previously available, or (3) need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest
injustice”. Dodge v. Susquehanna Univ., 796 F.Supp. 829, 830 (M.D. Pa. 1992 ). As
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has aptly observed:
“The purpose of a motion for reconsideration ... is to correct manifest
errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Max's
Seafood Café, 176 F.3d at 677 (quoting Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779
F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985)). “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.” Id.
(citation omitted).
Howard Hess Dental Laboratories Inc. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 602 F.3d 237, 251
(3d Cir. 2010).
Thus, it is well-settled that a mere disagreement with the court does not translate
into the type of clear error of law which justifies reconsideration of a ruling. Dodge,
796 F.Supp. at 830. Furthermore, “[b]ecause federal courts have a strong interest in
Case 4:25-cv-01349-MCC Document 32 Filed 02/25/26 Page 4 of 6

5
the finality of judgments, motions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly.”
Continental Casualty Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc., 884 F.Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa.
1995). 	Moreover, it is evident that a motion for reconsideration is not a tool to re-
litigate and reargue issues which have already been considered and disposed of by the
court. Dodge, 796 F.Supp. at 830. Rather, such a motion is appropriate only where the
court has misunderstood a party or where there has been a significant change in law
or facts since the court originally ruled on that issue. See Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel
Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983).
Judged by these settled tenets, Bennett’s motion fails. At the outset, Bennett
points us to no materially new facts which warrant reconsideration of this complaint,
nor can he given the Superior Court’s rejection of his post-conviction petition on its
merits. Commonwealth v. Bennett, No. 1435 MDA 2022, 2025 WL 2542683, at *1
(Pa. Super. Ct. Sept. 4, 2025). Likewise, Bennett identifies no intervening change in
the law which undermines our conclusion that his complaint fails on multiple grounds.
Finally, Bennett’s motion does not persuade us that the dismissal of this meritless
complaint works a manifest injustice. It does not.
III. 	Conclusion
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion to reconsider,
(Doc. 31), will be DENIED.
Case 4:25-cv-01349-MCC Document 32 Filed 02/25/26 Page 5 of 6

6
An appropriate order follows.
S/Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge
DATED: February 25, 2026.
Case 4:25-cv-01349-MCC Document 32 Filed 02/25/26 Page 6 of 6