Edge v. Bridgeport et al

Filing 9

PRISCS- RULING denying 8 Motion to Set Aside Judgment; denying 8 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 1/7/2013. (Payton, R.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
HAFI A. EDGE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BRIDGEPORT, et. al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

PRISONER CASE NO.
3:12-cv-1075 (JCH)
JANUARY 7, 2013

RULING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Doc. No. 8]
The plaintiff filed a civil action claiming that the defendants unreasonably
searched and seized him in violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
On December 11, 2012, the court dismissed the complaint as barred under the holding
in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The plaintiff now asks the court to
reconsider that ruling and set aside the judgment in this case.
Reconsideration will be granted only if the moving party can identify controlling
decisions or data that the court overlooked and that would reasonably be expected to
alter the court’s decision. See Schrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir.
1995). A motion for reconsideration may not be used to relitigate an issue the court
already has decided. See SPGGC, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 408 F. Supp. 2d 87, 91 (D.
Conn. 2006), aff’d in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 505 F.3d 183 (2d Cir.
2007).
The plaintiff confirms that he was convicted on the charges for which he was
arrested and that he has a pending state habeas action challenging that conviction on
the same grounds he asserted in this action. These statements support the court’s
decision that this action is barred. The plaintiff has not identified any facts or law that

would cause the court to question the prior decision. Nor has the plaintiff's conviction
been set aside. See Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1015 (2d Cir. 2000), overruled
on other grounds, Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (permitting section 1983 claims
of illegal search and seizure of evidence on which criminal charges are based once a
conviction based on those charges is set aside); Esquibel v. Williamson, 421 Fed. App'x
813, 816 (10th Cir. 2010) (noting that Heck's disallowance of section 1983 claims is
inapplicable if "the conviction has been set aside").
The plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and to set aside the judgment in this
case [Doc. No. 8] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

Dated this 7th day of January 2013, at New Haven, Connecticut.

/s/ Janet C. Hall
Janet C. Hall
United States District Judge

2