WADE v. WARDEN FCI FAIRTON et al

Filing 23

OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 8/22/2017. (rtm, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE

HUGH MAURICE ALLEN WADE,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, FCI FAIRTON, and
U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION
Respondents.

:
:
: Civil Action No. 15-8925 (RMB)
:
:
:
OPINION
:
:
:
:
:
:

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.
No. 22.)

(Amendment, ECF

For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s motion

for reconsideration is denied.
I.

BACKGROUND
Petitioner, Hugh Maurice Allen Wade, is a federal inmate

presently confined at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester,
1

The Court permitted Petitioner
addendum. (Opinion, ECF No. 10.)

to

amend

his

petition

by

Minnesota.2

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]).

Petitioner

continues to serve this sentence based on a series of subsequent
parole revocations.
In

his

(Opinion, ECF No. 15 at 2-5.)

habeas

petition,

Petitioner

challenged

the

April

2015 U.S. Parole Commission’s revocation decision in his case.
(Am. Pet., ECF Nos. 1, 8.)
he

asks

the

Court

to

In his motion for reconsideration,

reconsider

his

claim

that

the

“BOP

unlawfully discriminates against ‘Old Law’ inmates by holding
them to a different standard in regards to (RIS) reduction in
sentence.”
contends

(Mot. to Reconsider, ECF No. 21 at 1.)
he

has

received

new

information

Petitioner

contradicting

the

Court’s reason for denying his claim. (Id. at 1.)
In

his

amendment

to

his

motion

for

reconsideration,

Petitioner submitted additional new information, information he
sent to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
in

a

status

report.

(Amendment,

ECF

No.

22.)

The

new

information is:
2

Petitioner was confined at FCI-Fairton, in Fairton, New Jersey
when he filed the present petition. (Opinion, ECF No. 15 at 12.)
2

1).
On
February
8,
2017,
the
appellant/petitioner
appeared
before
the
U.S. Parole Commission.
The result was the
same, that is, continuation to expiration.
The
petitioner
was
not
considered
for
compassionate release.
2). As of April 6, 2017, the Bureau of
Prisons
has
redacted
Policy
Statement
5050.49, removing 18 U.S.C. § 4295 from the
compassionate
release
component
of
the
policy (RIS).
The

Court

notes

that

it

denied

Petitioner’s

equal

protection claim based on “Old Law” versus “New Law” inmates
without prejudice because Petitioner had not administratively
exhausted the claim.
II.

(Opinion, ECF No. 15 at 8-9.)

DISCUSSION
“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
correct

clear

error

of

law

or

prevent

manifest

injustice.”

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
Cir. 1995)).

3

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
compassionate

release

U.S.C. § 4205(a).

pursuant

to

BOP

Policy

5050.49

and

18

This Court’s reason for denying the “Old Law”

equal protection claim is that it was unexhausted.

The proper

procedure is for Petitioner to file a new habeas petition once
the claim is fully administratively exhausted.

The Warden’s

January 11, 2017 response to Petitioner is not new evidence
pertinent

to

exhausted

the

this

Court’s

claim,

decision

nor

is

the

that

Petitioner

information

had

not

submitted

by

Petitioner to the Clerk of the Court of the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals.
III. CONCLUSION
For
herewith,

these
the

reasons,
Court

in

the

denies

accompanying
Petitioner’s

Order
motion

filed
for

reconsideration.
DATED: August 22, 2017
s/RENÉE MARIE BUMB
Renée Marie Bumb
United States District Judge

4