Bacon v. Luzerne County et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSHUA DWANE BACON,
Plaintiff
V.
LUZERNE COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants
Civil No. 3:23-cv-1699
(Judge Mariani)
MEMORANDUM
Plaint iff Joshua Bacon ("Bacon"), an inmate in the custody of the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections ("DOC"), commenced this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 1983 . The matter is proceeding via a second amended complaint. 	(Doc . 78) . By
Memorandum and Order dated June 30, 2025 (Doc . 116, 117) , Defendants' partial motion
to dismiss was granted in part and den ied in part. 	Before the Court is Bacon 's motion (De.
119) for reconsideration of that Memorandum and Order .
This Court's June 30, 2025 Memorandum and Order dismissed the following claims:
(1) the claims against the Luzerne County Correctional Facility; (2) three of the four Mone//1
claims against Luzerne County; (3) the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process
claim; (4) the claims against Defendants Rockovich , Hyder, Pedri, and Crocamo; and (5) the
claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. 	(Docs. 116, 117). That same Memorandum and
Order also permitted the following claims to proceed: (1) one of the Monell claims aga inst
1 	Monell v. Dep 't of Social Services , 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
Case 3:23-cv-01699-RDM-CA Document 141 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 5

Luzerne County; (2) the Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim; and (3) the
claims against Defendants Mulhern and Schloss . (Id.).
Presently, Bacon seeks reconsideration of the Court 's dismissal of the following two
claims : (1) the second Monell claim -" the policy [or lack of a policy] that does not offer a
process to identify pretrial detainees who may 'decompensate' in solitary confinement "; and
(2) the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim. 	(Docs. 119, 120 , 128) .
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion.
I. 	Legal Standard
A motion for reconsideration is a device of limited utility. 	Its purpose 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). A party seeking reconsideration must
demonstrate 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
entered judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent
manifest injustice. 	Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 , 677 (3d Cir. 1999)
(citing North River Ins . Co . v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co ., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir . 1995)).
A motion for reconsideration is also appropriate in instances where the court has "patently
misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversar ial issues presented to
the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension."
Rohrbach v. AT&T Nassau Metals Corp. , 902 F. Supp. 523 , 527 (M.D . Pa. 1995), vacated in
2
Case 3:23-cv-01699-RDM-CA Document 141 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 5

part on other grounds on reconsideration, 915 F. Supp. 712 (M.D. Pa. 1996) (quoting Above
the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing , Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). "A motion
for reconsideration is not to be used as a means to reargue matters already argued and
disposed of ... [n]or is it to be used to put forth additional arguments which could have been
made but which the party neglected to make before judgment." 	Waye v. First Citizen's Nat.
Bank, 846 F.Supp. 310, 314 (M.D. Pa . 1994) (citation omitted). 	Reconsideration of a
judgment is an extraordinary remedy, and the court grants such motions sparingly. 	D'Angio
v. Borough of Nescopeck, 56 F.Supp.2d 502, 504 (M.D. Pa. 1999).
II. 	Discussion
A. 	Monell Claim
Upon careful consideration of the record, the Court finds no basis for altering its
determination that the above-referenced Monell claim should be dismissed. 	In his motion ,
Bacon argues that reconsideration is warranted because the Court misunderstood some of
his arguments. 	(Docs. 119, 128) . Although a court may reconsider its prior order when the
court has patently misunderstood a party's argument, the substance of Bacon's motion for
reconsideration shows that the Court did not misunderstand his earlier argument. 	Bacon
takes issue with the Court's reasoning for dismissal of this Monell claim. 	(Doc. 119; Doc.
120, at 1-4). Rather than seeking to correct a misunderstanding, Bacon's motion actually
asks the Court to review the same claim and reach a different conclusion, which is not a
proper basis for reconsideration.
3
Case 3:23-cv-01699-RDM-CA Document 141 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 5

Bacon's reconsiderat ion request with respect to the Monell claim offers no facts or
arguments which would undermine any of the conclusions set forth in the detailed June 30,
2025 Memorandum and Order. 	He fails to establish the presence of any errors of law or
fact and does not set forth any newly discovered evidence or precedent. The Court will
deny Bacon's motion for reconsideration regarding dismissal of the Monell claim.
B. 	Fourteenth Amendment Substant ive Due Process Claim
Bacon next requests that the Court reconsider dismissal of the substantive due
process claim or grant him leave to amend this claim. 	(Doc. 119; Doc. 120, at 5-7 ; Doc .
128, at 2-3). 	He asserts that during his August 22, 2025 deposition, he prov ided sufficient
factual detail about the conditions of solitary confinement. 	(Doc. 128, at 2-3). 	He thus
argues, inter alia, that he should be afforded the opportunity to amend the substantive due
process claim. 	(Id.).
First, Bacon's deposition testimony does not constitute the type of new evidence
warranting reconsideration because the factual details of Bacon's own testimony were
previously available to him. Bacon acknowledges that the matter is proceeding on his
second amended complaint, and he has been afforded prior opportunities to amend his
claims. 	(Id.). 	The factual allegations set forth by Bacon in his deposition could have been
included in any of his prior amended complaints .
Second, Bacon indicates that he wishes to "clarify" the facts he alleged in his second
amended complaint and the arguments in his brief in opposition to Defendants' partial
4
Case 3:23-cv-01699-RDM-CA Document 141 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 5

motion to dismiss. 	(Doc . 119, at 2 (stating that Bacon "is offering additional clarification to
help the court understand his position"); Doc. 120; Doc. 128). However, a motion for
reconsideration is not a means to get a "second bite at the apple." Kropa v. Cabot Oil &
Gas Corp ., 716 F. Supp . 2d 375, 378 (M.D. Pa. 2010).
Bacon's instant arguments fail to meet the narrowly defined factors set forth above
because they do not identify an intervening change in controlling law, provide any evidence
tha t was not previously available, or show the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent
manifest injustice. 	See United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670 , 676 (E.D . Pa . 2003) (a
successful motion for reconsideration requires the movant to demonstrate a "definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed[,]" or that the court overlooked
arguments that were previously made). 	Bacon's arguments are insufficient to warrant
reconsideration of dismissal of the substantive due process claim.
Ill. 	Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Bacon's motion for reconsideration.
(Doc. 119). A separate Order shall issue .
-----~71	~&/tt(
United States District Judge
Dated: January A_ ,2026
5
Case 3:23-cv-01699-RDM-CA Document 141 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 5