Randolph Artis v. Warden Paul Schultz

1
CLD-168 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-2590
___________
RANDOLPH ARTIS,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN PAUL SCHULTZ;
SCOTT DODRILL, Northeast Regional Director (Federal Bureau of Prisons);
H. LAPPIN, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; KARL J. BELFONTI, Associate
Warden; C. MAIORANA, Associate Warden; RODNEY L. KARR, Associate Warden;
J. BYRNES, S.I.S. Investigator; M.D. HANLEY, S.I.S. Investigator;
D.S. KULICK, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; BRIAN REDONDO, Staff Psychologist;
D. CHINNIC, Office Manager, FPI Unicor; J. UNGER, Payroll Manager, FPI Unicor;
WILLIAM PEREZ, Associate Warden; J. SMITH, Chief Psychologist;
HARRELL WATTS, Administrator, Federal Bureau of Prisons;
DELIA D. RUIS, Administrator, Federal Bureau of Prisons
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 09-00986)
District Judge: Honorable Renée Marie Bumb
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
April 21, 2011
Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 4, 2011)
_________
OPINION
_________

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM
Randolph Artis, a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) in
Fairton, New Jersey, appeals from the District Court’s order denying his motion for
reconsideration. We will affirm.
Artis was employed by Federal Prison Industries (“UNICOR”)at FCI Fairton. In
May 2007, after an investigation, Artis was charged with having been overpaid $197.60
for hours that he did not work from October 2006 through April 2007. The overpayment
resulted from an embezzlement scheme involving several inmates, including inmate
payroll clerk Foreman. On September 12, 2007, Disciplinary Hearing Officer Kulick
found that Artis had committed Prohibited Act 328, Receiving Anything of Value from
Another Inmate, or Any Other Person without Staff Authorization, and sanctioned Artis
with a 90-day loss of commissary privileges. In addition, $197.60 was taken from Artis’s
final pay from UNICOR, and he was instructed not to report to work at UNICOR. Artis
filed an appeal, which was denied because an investigation revealed that Artis informed
authorities of his overpayment only after the embezzlement was discovered.
Artis then filed an Administrative Tort Claim, requesting $198,618,045.56 in
damages. Regional Counsel declined to offer a settlement. Artis sought reconsideration,
but again did not obtain a settlement.
On March 5, 2009, Artis filed a pro se complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, raising a Bivens claim and also seeking damages
under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). The District Court concluded that Artis

-- 2 of 4 --

3
failed to state a claim under Bivens because prisoners have no protected liberty or
property interest in commissary privileges, retaining prison employment, or receiving
payment for hours admittedly not worked, and that he failed to state a claim under the
FTCA because his loses were not caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of
any employee of the Government. On October 7, 2009, the District Court dismissed the
complaint with prejudice, but advised Artis that he was free to seek leave to amend his
complaint under Rules 15 and 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if he intended
to allege that the BOP had intentionally or deliberately overpaid him so that it could fire
him on that basis.
Artis filed an amended complaint on October 28, 2009. The District Court
interpreted the amended complaint as including a motion for reconsideration, denied the
motion, and dismissed the amended complaint. Artis appealed.
We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is limited to
the order denying reconsideration.1 We review an order denying a motion for
reconsideration for abuse of discretion. See Max's Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d
669, 673 (3d Cir.1999). We will summarily affirm the District Court’s order because no
substantial issue is presented on appeal. See LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
“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 Cafe, 176 F.3d at
1 The amended complaint is dated October 23, 2009, more than ten days after
entry of the final order that dismissed the initial complaint with prejudice. Treated as a
motion for reconsideration filed on that date, the amended complaint did not toll the time
for appeal. See Lizardo v. United States, 619 F.3d 273, 280 (3d Cir. 2010).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
677. A judgment may be amended if the party seeking reconsideration demonstrates an
intervening change in the controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to
correct a clear error law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Id. As the District Court
explained, Artis’s amended complaint only restated facts and arguments that he had
included in his original complaint. Artis, therefore, did not provide the District Court a
basis for granting reconsideration.
As the District Court clearly did not abuse its discretion in denying Artis’s motion
for reconsideration, no substantial question is presented on appeal. Accordingly, we will
affirm the judgment of the District Court.

-- 4 of 4 --