IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE TAMARA M. MATTISON, ) Plaintiff, Vv. Civ. Action No. 21-1434-CFC AKUMIN, Formerly Known as Delaware Open MRI, ) Defendant. MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Tamara M. Mattison (“Plaintiff’) commenced this action on October 8, 2021. (D.I.2) She appears pro se and was denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis on October 14, 2021. (D.I.4) On October 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed a letter/motion for reconsideration. (D.I. 6) Il. DISCUSSION Plaintiff “appeals” the order denying her leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 6) She states that she has not had any income in 12 months, let alone the $78,000 that was referred to in the order. (Id.) She also states that she and her husband live together “but they are separate”. (/d.) The standard for obtaining relief under Rule 59(e) is difficult for Plaintiff to meet. 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 ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros,

, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). “A proper Rule 59(e) motion . . . must rely

on one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Lazaridis v. Wehmer,

(3d Cir. 2010) (citing N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co.,

(3d Cir. 1995)). A motion for reconsideration is not properly grounded on a request that a court rethink a decision already made. See Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon,

(E.D. Pa. 1993). Motions for reargument or reconsideration may not be used “as a means to argue new facts or issues that inexcusably were not presented to the court in the matter previously decided.” Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker,

(D. Del. 1990). Reargument, however, may be appropriate where “the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.” Brambles USA,

(D. Del. 1990) (citations omitted); See also D. Del. LR 7.1.5. Plaintiff was denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis based upon her answers and the combined income of Plaintiff and her spouse (i.e., $129,600). A review of the order indicates that the Order incorrectly stated Plaintiffs annual income as $78,000. The correct amount is $6,500; the annual amount of unemployment compensation that Plaintiff received. The combined annual income of Plaintiff and her spouse totals $58,100. Plaintiff does not qualify for in forma pauperis status when taking into consideration the combined income and the value of their home - $178,000. (See D.I. 1)

Upon review of the filings in the case, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any of the necessary grounds to warrant a reconsideration of the Court’s October 14, 2021 Order. Plaintiff must pay the $402 filing fee in full. See

. lll. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Court will deny the letter/motion for reconsideration. 6) An appropriate order will be entered. . Cot A <Z ro Chief Judge November. fe, 2021 Wilmington, Delaware