HASHER et al v.CORZINE et al

Filing 128

LETTER OPINION/ORDER denying 120 Motion for Reconsideration regarding 113 Letter Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion on 10/5/15. (cm )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHAMBERS OF

MARTIN LUTHER KING
COURTHOUSE
50 WALNUT ST.
ROOM 2064
NEWARK, NJ 07101
973-645-3827

STEVEN C. MANNION

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

October 5, 2015
LETTER OPINION/ORDER
Mr. Joseph Aruanno, #363
Special Treatment Unit
P.O. Box 905
Avenel, NJ 07001
Re:

D.E. 120, Plaintiff’s Application for Reconsideration
Hasher v. Corzine
Civil Action No. 07-cv-1212 (SDW-SCM)

Dear Litigants:
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff’ Joseph Aruanno’s motion filed
on August 5, 2015 seeking reconsideration of the denial of pro bono counsel. (ECF Docket Entry No.
(“D.E.”) 120, 125). Defendants have not taken a position on the motion. (D.E. 121).
The Court has reviewed the papers in support and those in opposition to the motion and for
the reasons set forth herein, the motion is denied.
I.

DISCUSSION

A.

Legal Standard

Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Civil Rule 7.1(i). A party seeking
reconsideration is directed to file a brief “setting forth concisely the matter or controlling decisions
which the party believes the Judge . . . has overlooked.” Local Civil Rule 7.1(i). To prevail on a
motion for reconsideration, the moving party must show 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 [made its initial decision]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to
prevent manifest injustice.” Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
“A motion for reconsideration under Rule 7.1(i) is an extremely limited procedural vehicle, and
requests pursuant to [the rule] are to be granted sparingly.” School Specialty, Inc. v. Ferrentino, No.
14-4507(RBK/AMD), 2015 WL 4602995, at *2 (D.N.J. (internal citations and quotations omitted.).
Motions for reconsideration require the moving party to set forth “concisely the matters or controlling
1

decision which counsel believes the [Court] has overlooked.” G-69 v. Degnan, 748 F. Supp. 274, 275
(D.N.J. 1990). Reconsideration “is not appropriate where the motion only raises a party’s
disagreement with the Court’s initial decision.” Gunter v. Township of Lumberton, No. Civ. 07-4839
NLH/KMW), 2012 WL 2522883, at *6 (D.N.J. June 29, 2012) (citing Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 680 F. Supp. 159, 163 (D.N.J. 1998)).
B.

Analysis

Plaintiff merely disagrees with the Court’s initial decision. First, Plaintiff does not claim there
was an intervening change in the controlling law. Second, Plaintiff does not claim that new evidence
is available that had not been available when the Court made its initial decision. Third, Plaintiff does
not contend that the Court made a clear error of law or fact, or that manifest injustice would result if
the Court did not reconsider its ruling. See Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.
1999). Furthermore, Plaintiff does not argue that the Court overlooked any matter.
While Plaintiff does not articulate his grounds for seeking reconsideration, he “cites” cases that
had been previously available when briefing the Court on the underlying motion.
II.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff does not cite any new law, nor does Plaintiff cite to any law that the Court did not
already consider. There was no oversight by this Court of the legal issues relevant to the adjudication
of this matter, nor was there any oversight as to any relevant facts or matters. Further, there is no
meritorious basis for reconsideration of the Court’s Order. As “[r]econsideration is not appropriate
where the motion only raises a party’s disagreement with the Court’s initial decision,” Plaintiff’s
Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Gunter, 2012 WL 2522883, at *2.
IT IS on this Monday, October 05, 2015 ordered as follows:
1.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
SO ORDERED.

10/5/2015 3:19:22 PM

2

c (via ECF):
All Counsel

3