The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JUDY THORPE,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 23-3788 (RK) JTQ)
v.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, et al.,
Defendants.
KIRSCH, District Judge
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon pro se Plaintiff Judy Thorpe’s (“Plaintiff”)
Motion for Reconsideration, (“MR,” ECF No. 22), of the Court’s October 4, 2024 Memorandum
Order, (“IFP Order,” ECF No. 21), dismissing her Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 5), with
prejudice.! (“IFP Order,” ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff also filed a Notice of Appeal of the IFP Order.
(ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff's appeal was docketed before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals with Case
Number 24-2930 on October 16, 2024. (ECF No. 24.) That same day, the Court of Appeals stayed
the appeal pending this Court’s decision on Plaintiff’s timely Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF
No. 25.) In light of the Third Circuit’s stay, the Court will therefore consider Plaintiff’s Motion
for Reconsideration of the IFP Order.’
' Defendants the Board of Trustees of the Public Employee Retirement System (“PERS”), Jeff S.
Ignatowitz, and Robert E. Kelly (collectively, “Defendants”), filed an opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for
Reconsideration. (See ECF No. 27.)
2 On October 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Correct Data on Court’s Computer System.” (ECF No.
26.) Plaintiff appears to challenge the docket text the Clerk’s Office used to describe the Notice of Appeal
Plaintiff filed at ECF No. 23. (See id. at 1-7.) The document Plaintiff filed was entitled “Notice of Appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit” and challenged the IFP Order, without limitation. (ECF
No. 23.) Plaintiff asserts this was incorrect because “[i]t was never my intention to appeal order on Motion
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(), a party may move for reconsideration within fourteen
(14) days of an entry of order or judgment on the original motion. Reconsideration is an
‘
“extraordinary remedy” to be granted “sparingly.” United States v. Coburn, No. 19-120, 2022 WL
874458, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 23, 2022) (citation omitted). To succeed on a motion for
reconsideration, a movant must show “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) new
evidence that was not available when the court issued its order, or (3) the need to correct a clear
error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Gibson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co,, 994 F.3d
182, 190 3d Cir. 2020) (citing Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010)). The party
seeking reconsideration must “set[] forth concisely the matter or controlling decisions which the
party believes the Judge has overlooked.” L, Civ. R. 7.1().
Even accounting for Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court is unable to discern any basis for
the Court to alter the conclusions of the IFP Order. As recounted there, Plaintiff initially sued
PERS, challenging its denial of Plaintiff's retirement benefits application. (IFP Order at 1-2.) After
the Court granted Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application, it screened Plaintiff's Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and found that PERS was immune from suit under the Eleventh
Amendment. (/d. at 2.) Plaintiff then filed the Amended Complaint, which was substantively
identical to the initial Complaint, but added two individual defendants who were allegedly PERS
employees. (Ud. at 3.)
Before the Court could screen the Amended Complaint, Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss, (ECF No. 16), and Plaintiff sought to strike the same, (ECF No. 17). The Court then
to Dismiss, it was never my intention to appeal order on motion to strike.” (ECF No. 26 at 7.) However,
her Notice of Appeal does not limit the issues she wishes to raise on appeal and broadly challenges the IFP
Order. Therefore, the docket text of ECF No. 23 is accurate, and Plaintiff's Motion, (ECF No. 26), is
DENIED. To the extent Plaintiff no longer wishes to appeal some portion of the IFP Order, she may dismiss
those issues by filing with the Court of Appeals.
screened the Amended Complaint and found that Plaintiff’s claims still failed on Eleventh
Amendment grounds.’ (IFP Order at 7-8.) The Court dismissed the Amended Complaint with
prejudice, as this was Plaintiffs second attempt to essentially “evade the Eleventh Amendment to
have the Court re-review [PERS’s decision].” (/d. at 9.)
Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration does not point to any “clear error of law” or a need
to “prevent manifest injustice” presented by the Court’s IFP Order. While Plaintiff argues, “[t]he
[C]ourt failed to appreciate the significance of [her] well-reasoned arguments and exhibits that
were attached to [her] Amended Complaint,” (MR at 8—9), this is not a basis for reconsideration.
See Delaney v. Am. Express Co., No. 06-5134, 2007 WL 1959238, at *1 (D.N.J. June 29, 2007)
(denying motion for reconsideration where it amounted “to nothing more than disagreement with
the Court's decision’), Moreover, while Plaintiff argues that she “did not have [a] full and fair
opportunity” to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (MR at 3-4), the Court explicitly stated
in the IFP Order that it did not consider Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, but rather, “evaluate[d]
the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).’* (IFP Order at 5.)
3 The Court also found Plaintiff failed to state a claim against the two individual defendants as her limited
references to them in the Amended Complaint “ma[d]e, at most, conclusory allegations about purported
misconduct.” (IFP Order at 8.) Further, the Court found that none of the federal statutes cited by Plaintiff
in the Amended Complaint could “support a cognizable claim.” (Ud. at 9 n.4.)
The Court notes that the purpose of its ability to screen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) is to guard against
“abuse” of “cost-free access to the federal courts.” Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1084 (3d Cir.
1995), Plaintiffs unsuccessful attempts to litigate ad nauseum PERS’s decision and her related termination
from the New Jersey Juvenile Justice Commission—as outlined in the IFP Order, (see JFP Order at 1 n.1)—
are an apt example. Plaintiff recently filed a substantively similar Motion for Reconsideration in another
matter in which she seeks to challenge PERS’s decision. See Thorpe v. State of New Jersey, Dep’t. of Treas.,
Div. of Pensions and Benefits, Case No. 24-1463 (D.N.J.). In a third related case Plaintiff has filed, Thorpe
vy. Cipparulo, Case No. 23-3590 (D.N.J.), the Court screened and dismissed the complaint; Plaintiff filed a
motion for reconsideration as well as a notice of appeal, and the Court of Appeals stayed the appeal pending
a decision on the reconsideration motion. This Court subsequently denied reconsideration, and the Court of
Appeals ultimately dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute.
Therefore, IT IS on this 28th day of October, 2024, ORDERED that:
1. The Clerk’s Office is directed to REOPEN this matter for a decision on Plaintiff’s
Motion for Reconsideration, (ECF No. 22), and Motion to Correct Data on Court’s
Computer System, (ECF No. 26);
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, (ECF No. 22), and Motion to Correct Data on
Court’s Computer System, (ECF No. 26), are DENIED for the reasons set forth above;
3. The Clerk’s Office is directed to TERMINATE the motions pending at ECF Nos, 22
and 26;
4, The Clerk’s Office is directed to CLOSE this matter; and
5. The Clerk’s Office shall serve on Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail this Memorandum
Order to her address of record. ee
a) a }
fo ff /
f ff
□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE