HARRIS v. RUBIN
MEMORANDUM & ORDER reopening this matter to reconsider the application for reconsideration; denying the application for reconsideration and re-closing this matter. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 5/20/2014. (nr, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ANTONIO CLIFFORD HARRIS,
ANN R. RUBIN,
Civil Action No. 09-4368 (SDW)
THIS MATTER comes before the Court by application of Plaintiff, Antonio Clifford
Harris, filed in support of his case, which was dismissed by this Court on March 30, 2012. It
1. On August 24, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant Prosecutor Ann R.
Rubin. (ECF No. 1.) On April 1, 2010, this Court dismissed some of the claims with prejudice
because they were barred by prosecutorial immunity and were untimely. Plaintiff’s remaining
claims were dismissed without prejudice. (ECF No. 2.)
2. On December 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a new application in this matter seeking his
release from confinement. (ECF No. 5.) The case was re-opened and this Court construed the
application as a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 6.)
The Court denied the request for
reconsideration, finding that Plaintiff was seeking his release from confinement, and that such
action is not cognizable in a civil rights complaint. Plaintiff was given leave to file a separate
habeas petition in the event he chose to seek habeas relief. (Id.)
3. On January 31, 2012, Plaintiff filed a habeas petition (ECF No. 7), which was
dismissed on March 30, 2012. (ECF No. 8.) Thereafter, on April 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed the
instant application in support of his case.
(ECF No. 9.)
Plaintiff does not designate his
application as a motion to re-open or for reconsideration of this Court’s prior Orders. In fact, the
submission by Plaintiff is mostly incoherent and attaches seemingly unrelated documents and
4. The Court construes Plaintiff’s application as a motion for reconsideration, and directs
the Clerk of the Court to re-open the case for deliberation.
5. Because Plaintiff’s submission (ECF No. 9) provides no basis for reconsideration of
this Court’s prior Order of Dismissal, Plaintiff’s request is denied with prejudice. Plaintiff shall
not be permitted leave to file any new pleading or other application in this case, in light of this
Court’s three earlier Orders as discussed above. The case will be re-closed accordingly
THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING,
IT IS ON THIS 20th day of May, 2014
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court SHALL RE-OPEN this case for consideration of
Plaintiff’s motion/application for reconsideration (ECF No. 9); and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 9) is hereby DENIED
WITH PREJUDICE to Plaintiff filing any new pleading or other application in this action; and it
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court SHALL RE-CLOSE this matter accordingly.
_s/ Susan D. Wigenton________
United States District Judge
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?