WOODSON v. UNKNOWN AGENTS OF UKNOWN AGENCY

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying w/out prejudice Petitioner's re-application to proceed IFP. The Petitioner shall submit a complete IFP or pay the FF w/in 30 days, etc. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 1/6/2015. (drw)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
________________________________
:
SEAN D. WOODSON,
:
: Civil Action No. 14-7033 (RMB)
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
UNKNOWN AGENTS
:
OF UKNOWN AGENCY,
:
: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Respondents.
:
_______________________________________
:
BUMB, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court upon the Clerk’s receipt
of Petitioner’s letter, see Docket Entry No. 6, which seek
reconsideration of this Court’s prior order denying Petitioner in
forma pauperis status without prejudice and dismissing his
challenges on the grounds that these challenges were already
adjudicated by the District of Maryland and United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
(extensively detailing the same).

See Docket Entry No. 2
Petitioner’s letter asserts

that he did not seek in forma pauperis status in connection with
the instant matter and could not submit in forma pauperis
application after this Court entered its order because Petitioner
was not served with a blank in forma pauperis form.
Entry No. 6, at 1.

See Docket

However, the Clerk was directed to serve and

did indeed serve Petitioner with a blank in forma pauperis form.

See Docket Entry No. 2, at 10.

However, Petitioner still did not

submit his in forma pauperis application.

See generally, Docket.

Therefore, Petitioner failed to comply with this Court’s order.
That said, out of an abundance of caution, this Court will direct
the Clerk to re-serve such blank in forma pauperis form and will
allow Petitioner additional thirty days to prepay his $5 filing
fee or submit his in forma pauperis application.
Just as Petitioner’s Petition, Docket Entry No. 1,
Petitioner’s letter at bar maintains that this Court should
reverse the determinations reached by the District of Maryland
and United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Docket Entry No. 6.

See

The letter asserts Petitioner’s disagreement

with the analysis conducted by the District of Maryland and,
especially, with the District of Maryland’s reliance on Article
III.

See generally, id.
As this Court already explained to Petitioner, any re-

litigation of the challenges resolved by the District of Maryland
and United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is
barred by the doctrine of res judicata, which applies not only to
the very issues that were adjudicated but also to all other
issues that could have been raised/analyzed in connection with
the issued adjudicated.

See Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist.,

767 F.3d 247, 276 (3d Cir. 2014) (res judicata bars not only
claims that were brought in the previous action, but also claims

2

that could have been brought because “[a] claim extinguished by
res judicata includes all rights of the plaintiff to remedies
against the defendant with respect to all or any part of the
transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which
the action arose”); see also McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 486
(1991) (pointing out that § 2244(b) “establishes a ‘qualified
application of the doctrine of res judicata’ [to habeas
actions]”) (citation to legislative records omitted); R & J
Holding Co. v. Redevelopment Auth. of Cnty. of Montgomery, 670
F.3d 420, 427 (3d Cir. 2011) (same).
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s application for
reconsideration is without merit.
is a device of limited utility.

A motion for reconsideration

There are only four grounds upon

which a motion for reconsideration might be granted: (a) to
correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment
was based; (b) to present newly-discovered or previously
unavailable evidence; (c) to prevent manifest injustice; and (d)
to accord the decision to an intervening change in prevailing
law.

See 11 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane,

Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995); see also
Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985),
cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 (1986) (purpose of motion for
reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or
to present newly discovered evidence).

3

“To support reargument, a

moving party must show that dispositive factual matters or
controlling decisions of law were overlooked by the court in
reaching its prior decision.”

Assisted Living Associates of

Moorestown, L.L.C., v. Moorestown Tp., 996 F. Supp. 409, 442
(D.N.J. 1998).

In contrast, mere disagreement with the district

court’s decision is an inappropriate ground for a motion for
reconsideration: such disagreement should be raised through the
appellate process.

See id. (citing Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of

America, Inc., 820 F. Supp. 834, 859 n.8 (D.N.J. 1992), aff’d, 37
F.3d 1485 (3d Cir. 1994); see also Drysdale v. Woerth, 153 F.
Supp. 2d 678, 682 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (a motion for reconsideration
may not be used as a means to reargue unsuccessful theories).
Consequently, “[t]he Court will only entertain such a motion
where the overlooked matters, if considered by the Court, might
reasonably have resulted in a different conclusion.”

Assisted

Living, 996 F. Supp. at 442.
Here, Petitioner’s application points at no errors of law or
fact as to this Court’s res judicata finding.

It also fails to

present any newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence,
and it cites no intervening change in prevailing law.
Entry No. 6.

See Docket

Finally, to the extent the statements in the letter

accusing this Court of “consciencelessness” and “incorrigibility”
could be construed as an attempt to assert “manifest injustice,”
Petitioner’s position is unavailing.

4

In the context of a motion to reconsider, the term “manifest
injustice” “means that the Court overlooked some dispositive
factual or legal matter that was presented to it,” In re Rose,
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64622, at *3 (D.N.J. Aug. 30, 2007), making
the definition an overlap with the prime basis for
reconsideration articulated in Harsco, that is, the need “to
correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment
was based.”

Alternatively, the term “manifest injustice” could

be defined as “‘an error in the trial court that is direct,
obvious, and observable.’”

Tenn. Prot. & Advocacy, Inc. v.

Wells, 371 F.3d 342, 348 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Black's Law
Dictionary 974 (7th ed. 1999)).

“[M]ost cases [therefore,] use

the term ‘manifest injustice’ to describe the result of a plain
error.”

Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415,

1425 (5th Cir. 1996).

Here, Petitioner’s letter points at no

error in this Court’s res judicata reasoning.
IT IS, therefore, on this 6th day of January 2015,
ORDERED that Petitioner’s re-application to proceed in this
matter in forma pauperis, if such re-application was implied, is
denied without prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that, within thirty days from the date of entry of
this Memorandum Opinion and Order, Petitioner shall either submit
his complete and properly certified by prison officials in forma
pauperis application or $5 filing fee; and it is further
5

ORDERED that Petitioner’s letter, Docket Entry No. 6, is
construed as a motion for reconsideration and, while granted in
form, it is denied in substance, see Pena-Ruiz v. Solorzano, 2008
U.S. App. LEXIS 12436, at *2-3, n.1 (3d Cir. 2008) (a litigant's
motion for reconsideration is deemed “granted” if the court
addresses the merits — rather than the mere procedural propriety
or lack thereof - of that motion, but the fact of the court’s
review does not prevent the court from reaching a disposition
identical — either in its rationale or in its outcome, or in both
regards — to the court’s previously reached decision); and it is
finally
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Memorandum Opinion
and Order upon Petitioner by regular U.S. mail and enclose in
said mailing a blank Affidavit of Poverty and Certification
(Habeas Corpus), DNJ-Pro Se-007-B (Rev. 09/09).

Such mailing

shall be addressed to: “Sean David Woodson, Jennifer Road
Detention Center, 131 Jennifer Road, Annapolis, MD 21401.”

s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge

6