BRILEY v. LYNCH et al

Filing 48

OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 1/4/2019. (tf, n.m.)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE

JAY BONANZA BRILEY,
Petitioner,
v.
MR. ORTIZ, Warden,
FCI Fort Dix,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civ. Action No. 16-5571 (RMB)

OPINION

BUMB, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner Jay Bonanza
Briley’s (“Briley”) Motion for Relief from Order and Opinion, Dated
April 21, 2017 (“Second Mot. for Reconsideration,” ECF No. 47.)
For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Briley’s second
motion for reconsideration.
I.

BACKGROUND
On

September

13,

2016,

Petitioner

Jay

Bonanza

Briley

(“Briley”), incarcerated in FCI Fort Dix, in Fort Dix, New Jersey,
filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
(Pet., ECF No. 1.) Briley contended that Federal Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) staff improperly renewed a “Greater Security Management
Variable” (“MGTV”) and later improperly applied a “Public Safety

Factor” (“PSF”) to his security classification, precluding him
from transferring to a minimum-security prison camp. (Pet., ECF
No. 1, ¶¶14, 16, 19, 25-27.) Briley sought immediate release to a
residential
Veteran

reentry

Outreach

center

Treatment

(“RRC”),

and

participation

in

Program

and

the

Reentry

Veterans

the

Program. (Id., ¶33.) He further sought one-year early release based
on his RDAP treatment.

(Id., ¶34.)

On April 21, 2017, this Court dismissed Briley’s § 2241
petition, holding Briley’s claims that the Federal Bureau of
Prisons (“BOP”) staff improperly renewed a MGTV and improperly
applied a PSF to his security classification are not cognizable
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Opinion, ECF No. 31 at 12-13, citing
Mundo–Violante, 654 F. App’x 49, 51 (3d Cir. 2016) (“neither BOP
policy nor the Due Process Clause gives a prisoner a liberty
interest in a particular housing location or custody level while
under the jurisdiction of correctional authorities”) (citations
omitted); Briley III, 632 F. App’x at 85 (noting that inmates have
no constitutional right to a particular security classification);
Anguiano-Sanchez v. Zickefoose, No. 12-0477 (RMB), 2013 WL 356012,
at *3 (D.N.J. Jan. 29, 2013) (same); Ford v. Hughes, No. 11-7029
(RMB), 2012 WL 3228714, at *3 (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2012) (same)).
The

Court

unexhausted

also

claims

dismissed

concerning

RRC

without

prejudice

placement

and

Briley’s

RDAP

early

release. (Id. at 13, 14.) Briley filed a notice of appeal to the
2

Third Circuit Court of Appeals on May 5, 2017, and the Third
Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court on August 15,
2017. (ECF Nos. 33, 44).
On

May

9,

2017,

Briley

filed

his

first

motion

for

reconsideration (ECF No. 34), which he amended on May 30, 2017.
(ECF No. 38.) The Court found reconsideration was not warranted
based on the documents filed in Docket Entry 25 or the May 3, 2017
response from Briley’s probation officer because Briley’s claims
challenging his security classification were simply not cognizable
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Opinion, ECF No. 45 at 5-6 citing Briley
v. Att. Gen. U.S., 632 F. App’x 84, 85 (3d Cir. 2016) (dismissing
Briley’s security classification claim in prior habeas petition);
Briley, No. 17-2029, 2017 WL 3483166, at *2 (“Briley's instant
claims—that the BOP staff improperly renewed a MGTV and improperly
applied a PSF to his security classification—are not cognizable in
a § 2241 petition because he does not challenge the basic fact or
duration of his imprisonment.)
In Briley’s instant motion for reconsideration, he alleges
newly

discovered

evidence

that

Attorney

Edward

J.

Dimon

of

Carluccio, Leone, Dimon, Doyle & Sacks, LLC agreed to represent
Briley in this action. (Second Mot. for Reconsideration, ECF No.
47.) Petitioner did not know Mr. Dimon had agreed to represent him
until Petitioner’s wife sent a copy of the contract to him at FCI
Fort Dix. (Id.) Briley signed the contract on April 21, 2017. (Id.)
3

II.

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review

In the District of New Jersey, motions for reconsideration
are governed by Local Civil Rule 7.1(i), which provides:
Unless otherwise provided by statute or rule
(such as Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, 52 and 59), a
motion for reconsideration shall be served and
filed within 14 days after the entry of the
order or judgment on the original motion by
the Judge or Magistrate Judge. A brief setting
forth concisely the matter or controlling
decisions which the party believes the Judge
or Magistrate Judge has overlooked shall be
filed with the Notice of Motion.
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to present
newly discovered evidence or to correct manifest errors of law or
fact. Howard Hess Dental Laboratories Inc. v. Dentsply Intern.,
Inc., 602 F.3d 237, 251 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Max's Seafood Café
v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting Harsco
Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985)).
Accordingly, a judgment may be altered or
amended if the party seeking reconsideration
shows at least one of the following grounds:
(1) an intervening change in the controlling
law; (2) the availability of new evidence that
was not available when the court granted the
motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need
to correct a clear error of law or fact or to
prevent manifest injustice.”
Howard Hess Dental Laboratories Inc., 602 F.3d at 251.

4

B.

Analysis

Reconsideration
contract

with

is

Briley.

not

warranted

Briley’s

based

challenge

on
to

Mr.
his

Dimon’s
security

classification simply is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
See Briley v. Att. Gen. U.S., 632 F. App’x 84, 85 (3d Cir. 2016)
(dismissing Briley’s security classification claim in prior habeas
petition); Briley, No. 17-2029, 2017 WL 3483166, at *2 (“Briley's
instant claims—that the BOP staff improperly renewed a MGTV and
improperly applied a PSF to his security classification—are not
cognizable in a § 2241 petition because he does not challenge the
basic fact or duration of his imprisonment.)
III. CONCLUSION
For

the

reasons

discussed

above,

the

second

motion

for

reconsideration is denied.
An appropriate Order follows.
Dated: January 4, 2019
s/Renée Marie Bumb
Renée Marie Bumb
United States District Judge

5