1. By Order dated December 21, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff's

Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court found that Plaintiff is barred pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 8804(f), having failed to allege imminent danger of serious physical injury, as required by the Order dated May 10, 2016 in C.A.No. N16M-02-175. Plaintiff's instant motion restates facts previously alleged, and attempts to reargue the Court's prior rulings.

*2

1. The purpose of reargument is to permit reconsideration of findings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgment of law. ^[1] Reargument usually will be denied unless the moving party demonstrates that the Court overlooked a precedent or legal principle that would have a controlling effect, or that it has misapprehended the law or the facts in a manner affecting the outcome of the decision. "A motion for reargument should not be used merely to rehash the arguments already decided by the court." ^[2]
2. Plaintiff has not specified any basis for reargument. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Court overlooked a precedent or legal principle that would have a controlling effect, or that it misapprehended the law or the facts in a manner affecting the outcome of the decision.

THEREFORE, "Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Under In Forma Pauperis and Motion to Amend Pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 12(a)" - deemed by the Court to be a Motion for Reargument - is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NOTES

${}^1$ Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701, 702 (1969).

${}^2$ Wilmington Trust Co. v. Nix, 2002 WL 356371 (Del. Super.); Whitsett v. Capital School District, Del. Super., C.A. No. 97C-04-032 Vaughn, J. (Jan. 28, 1999); Monsanto Co. v. Aetna Casualty &; Surety Co., Del. Super., C.A. No. 88-JA-118, Ridgeley, P.J. (Jan. 14, 1994).