BLACK v. KIRBY

Filing 7

OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 1/31/2017. (tf, n.m.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
___________________________________
:
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
MARK KIRBY,
:
:
Respondent.
:
___________________________________:
RODERICK BLACK,

Civ. No. 16-1553 (NLH)
OPINION

APPEARANCES:
Roderick Black
28287-054
Fairton
Federal Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 420
Fairton, NJ 08320
Petitioner Pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner Roderick
Black's (“Petitioner”) Motion for Reconsideration of this
Court's Opinion and Order dismissing his Petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 6.)

For the reasons discussed below,

the Court will deny reconsideration.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a federal inmate confined at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Fairton, New Jersey. (Pet., ECF No.
1.)

In his Petition, Petitioner asserted that he was actually

innocent of the life sentence imposed under 21 U.S.C. § 841 and

that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to challenge his
conviction or sentence because he was sentenced prior to the
Supreme Court’s decision in Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct.
881, 187 L. Ed. 2d 715 (2014).

(Pet. 2, 5, ECF No. 1).

In an Opinion and Order entered on June 7, 2016, this Court
dismissed the Petition for lack of jurisdiction, finding that
“the Supreme Court's decision in Burrage did not decriminalize
the conduct for which Petitioner was convicted.”

Black v.

Kirby, No. 16-1553, 2016 WL 3219864, at *4 (D.N.J. June 7,
2016).

The Court further noted that, in a recent decision, the

Third Circuit confirmed that a challenge to a conviction based
on Burrage did not fall into the limited exception where § 2255
is inadequate or ineffective.

Id. (citing Dixon v. Warden of

FCI Schuylkill, No. 15-4089, 2016 WL 1568147, at *2 (3d Cir.
Apr. 19, 2016)).
In the instant Motion, Petitioner seeks reconsideration of
the dismissal of his Petition on two grounds:
1) Whether the rule announced in Burrage is an
intervening change
in law, base an
a
substantive statutory interpretation of an
existing statute 84 (1) (a) an if he entitlted
to the benefit from the interpretation to
filed 2241 challenge actually innocence of
drug conviction.
2) Whether the rule announced in Burrage that
narrow the scope of the statute (drug element)
of 841 (a) (1) if he being convicted without
the element of crime charge and if so, is
conduct deem non-criminal this Court had the

jurisdiction to adhere Supreme Court case law
and vacate Black conviction of drug crime base
on the intervening change in law.
When
Burrage interpreted a substantive criminal
statute 841 (a)(1).
(Mot. 9, ECF No. 6.) (spelling and grammatical errors
contained in original).
II. DISCUSSION
A motion for reconsideration may be treated as a motion to
alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e), or as a motion for relief from judgment or order under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), or it may be filed
pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(i).

The purpose of a motion

for reconsideration “is to correct manifest errors of law or
fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”

Max's Seafood

Cafe ex rel. Lou–Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d
Cir. 1999).

A judgment may be altered or amended only if the

party seeking reconsideration shows: (1) an intervening change
in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence
that was not available; or (3) the need to correct a clear error
of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.

Id.

A motion

for reconsideration may not be used to re-litigate old matters
or argue new matters that could have been raised before the
original decision was reached, P. Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt., L.L.C.
v. Cendant Corp., 161 F.Supp.2d 349, 352 (D.N.J. 2001), and mere
disagreement with the Court will not suffice to show that the

Court overlooked relevant facts or controlling law, United
States v. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F.Supp.2d 339, 345 (D.N.J.
1999).
In this matter, there has been no intervening change in the
controlling law since the time the Court entered its Opinion and
Order and there is no new evidence that was not available when
the Court dismissed the Petition.

To the extent Petitioner is

arguing that there is a need to correct a clear error of law,
the Court notes that it relied on a Third Circuit Court of
Appeals case in finding that the Supreme Court's decision in
Burrage does not fall within the parameters of the Dorsainvil1
exception, which allows a prisoner to bring such a claim in a
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Black v. Kirby, 2016 WL

3219864, at *4 (citing Dixon, 2016 WL 1568147, at *2).

As such,

any intended argument that there is a need to correct a clear
error of law is without merit.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court will deny the
Motion for Reconsideration.

Dated: January 31, 2017
At Camden, New Jersey

1

An appropriate order follows.

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997)