HASHER et al v.CORZINE et al
LETTER OPINION/ORDER denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion on 3/9/16. (cm )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MARTIN LUTHER KING
50 WALNUT ST.
NEWARK, NJ 07101
STEVEN C. MANNION
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
March 9, 2016
D.E. 142, Plaintiff’s Request for Reconsideration
Hasher v. Corzine
Civil Action No. 07-cv-1212 (SDW-SCM)
This matter comes before the Court upon review of pro se Plaintiff Joseph Aruanno’s (Mr.
Aruanno) informal letter filed on February 18, 2016 requesting reconsideration of the denial of his
informal motion for appointment of pro bono counsel.1 The Court has reviewed the papers and for
the reasons stated herein, the request is denied.
The parties were previously informed of the standard for reconsideration in the Letter
Opinion filed on January 8, 2016. (D.E. 140). Therefore, the standard need not be restated here.
Mr. Aruanno’s letter makes no attempt to meet the standard for reconsideration and merely raises
his disagreement with the prior decision. Reconsideration “is not appropriate where the motion
only raises a party’s disagreement with the Court’s initial decision.”2 For this reason, the request for
relief is denied.
The Local Rules permit judges to allow the filing of informal motions to expedite a case, but
1 (ECF Docket Entry No. (“D.E.”) 142).
2 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.
that practice is typically reserved for cases litigated with counsel, not pro se litigants.3 Requests for
relief must be made by notice of motion with certification of service, a proposed order and a brief or
statement in lieu of brief where appropriate.4 Briefs must also comply with all of the requirements
of Local Civil Rule 7.2. When exhibits are submitted, they must be attached to an affidavit,
certification, or declaration. “Motions” that do not comply with the Court’s rules may be denied or
stricken by the Court.
Mr. Aruanno’s request for reconsideration did not include a notice of motion, certification
of service, or a proposed order.5 Instead, it consisted of a letter to the Court. The submission did
not comply with the Local Civil Rule 7.2 requirements for either briefs or the requirements for an
affidavit, certification, or declaration. For these reasons, the request for relief is denied without
An appropriate order shall issue.
IT IS on this Wednesday, March 09, 2016 ordered as follows:
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied; and it is further ordered
The Clerk of the Court shall forward a copy of this opinion and order to Plaintiff
3/9/2016 11:40:42 AM
3 See L.Civ.R. 7.1(b) and L.Civ.R. 37.1(a)(2).
4 L.Civ.R. 7.1(d),(e) and L.Civ.R. 37.1(b).
5 See (D.E. 142).
Original: Clerk of the Court
cc: Hon. Susan D. Wigenton, U.S.D.J.
All Counsel (via ECF)
c(via U.S. Mail):
Mr. Joseph Aruanno, #363
Special Treatment Unit
P.O. Box 905
Avenel, NJ 07001
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?