Bewry v. Commissioner of Corrections

Filing 19

PRISCS-RULING denying 18 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 6/19/2012. (Payton, R.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

BERNARD BEWRY
v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

:
:
:
:
:

PRISONER
Case No. 3:11cv727(JBA)

RULING ON PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Doc. #18]
On April 4, 2012, the court granted the respondent’s motion
to dismiss this petition on the ground that the petition is timebarred.

See Doc. #16.

The petitioner has filed a timely motion

for reconsideration of that decision.

For the reasons that

follow, the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
The Second Circuit has held that “[t]he standard for
granting [a motion for reconsideration] is strict, and
reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party
can point to controlling decisions or data that the court
overlooked-matters, in other words, that might reasonably be
expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.”

Shrader

v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995) (citations
omitted).

A motion for reconsideration may be granted on one of

only three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law;
(2) the availability of newly discovered evidence; and (3) the
need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245,

1255 (2d Cir. 1992).

See Eisemann v. Greene, 204 F.3d 393, 395

n.2 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (“To be entitled to reargument, a
party must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling
decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the
underlying motion.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The

petitioner cannot, however, seek reconsideration to “plug gaps in
an original argument or to argue in the alternative once a
decision has been made.”

Horsehead Resource Dev. Co., Inc. v.

B.U.S. Envtl. Serv., Inc., 928 F. Supp. 287, 289 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In his motion, the petitioner merely reasserts arguments he
made in opposition to the motion to dismiss.

The court

considered and rejected these arguments in the prior ruling.

The

petitioner’s disagreement with that decision does not warrant
reconsideration.

As the petitioner has not identified any facts

or law overlooked by the court, the motion for reconsideration
[Doc. #18] is DENIED.

The court concludes that an appeal of this

order would not be taken in good faith.

Thus, a certificate of

appealability will not issue.
It is so ordered.
/s/
Janet Bond Arterton
United States District Judge
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut: June 19, 2012.

2