WADE v. WARDEN FCI FAIRTON et al
OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 8/22/2017. (rtm, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
HUGH MAURICE ALLEN WADE,
WARDEN, FCI FAIRTON, and
U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION
: Civil Action No. 15-8925 (RMB)
BUMB, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration of this Court’s order denying his amended
petition1 for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
(Mot. to Reconsider Habeas Corpus Pet. Based on New Evidence
(“Mot. to Reconsider,”) ECF No. 21.)
Petitioner also submitted
an amendment to his motion for reconsideration.
For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration is denied.
Petitioner, Hugh Maurice Allen Wade, is a federal inmate
presently confined at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester,
The Court permitted Petitioner
addendum. (Opinion, ECF No. 10.)
On January 30, 1979, Petitioner was sentenced, in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
to a prison term of fifteen years for distribution of heroin, a
consecutive ten years for bank robbery, and a 5-year special
parole term to follow. (Gervasoni Certificate, ECF No. 7-4, Ex.
1 [Sentence Monitoring Computation Data, pp. 7-8]).
continues to serve this sentence based on a series of subsequent
(Opinion, ECF No. 15 at 2-5.)
2015 U.S. Parole Commission’s revocation decision in his case.
(Am. Pet., ECF Nos. 1, 8.)
In his motion for reconsideration,
unlawfully discriminates against ‘Old Law’ inmates by holding
them to a different standard in regards to (RIS) reduction in
(Mot. to Reconsider, ECF No. 21 at 1.)
Court’s reason for denying his claim. (Id. at 1.)
Petitioner submitted additional new information, information he
sent to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Petitioner was confined at FCI-Fairton, in Fairton, New Jersey
when he filed the present petition. (Opinion, ECF No. 15 at 12.)
U.S. Parole Commission.
The result was the
same, that is, continuation to expiration.
2). As of April 6, 2017, the Bureau of
5050.49, removing 18 U.S.C. § 4295 from the
protection claim based on “Old Law” versus “New Law” inmates
without prejudice because Petitioner had not administratively
exhausted the claim.
(Opinion, ECF No. 15 at 8-9.)
“Rule 59(e) permits the filing of a motion to alter or
amend a judgment. A motion under Rule 59(e) is a ‘device to
relitigate the original issue’ decided by the district court,
and used to allege legal error.”
U.S. v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d
282, 288 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting Smith v. Evans, 853 F.2d 155,
158–59 (3d Cir. 1988)).
A proper Rule 59(e) motion relies on
one of three grounds: “(1) an intervening change in controlling
law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to
Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing N.
River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d
Plaintiff asserts he received new information pertinent to
his claim, a response [dated January 11, 2017] from the Warden
at FMC-Rochester, advising him that he was not eligible for
U.S.C. § 4205(a).
This Court’s reason for denying the “Old Law”
equal protection claim is that it was unexhausted.
procedure is for Petitioner to file a new habeas petition once
the claim is fully administratively exhausted.
January 11, 2017 response to Petitioner is not new evidence
Petitioner to the Clerk of the Court of the Third Circuit Court
DATED: August 22, 2017
s/RENÉE MARIE BUMB
Renée Marie Bumb
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?