GREEN v. WARREN et al

Filing 25

OPINION. Signed by Judge Esther Salas on 9/11/2014. (nr, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

AL-QUAADIR GREEN,

v.

:

Civil No. 12-6148 (ES)

:

Petitioner,

OPINION

CHARLES E. WARREN, et al.,
Respondents.

SALAS, DIsTlucT JuDGE

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254.

Presently before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for

reconsideration (D.E. No. 23) of this Court’s December 20, 2013 Opinion and Order (D.E. Nos.
21-22) denying the petition. The Clerk will be ordered to reopen this matter so that the Court may
rule on the motion. For the following reasons, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration will be
denied.
I. BACKGROUND
In its December 20, 2013 Opinion and Order, this Court denied the petition on its merits.
With regard to Petitioner’s request for a stay (D.E. No. 6), the claims that Petitioner alleged were
unexhausted appeared to be identical to claims which were already exhausted, and to the extent
they were not, the Court denied them on the merits. (D.E. No. 21, Dec. 20, 2013 Opinion 37.)
The Court further found that Petitioner raised three new claims for the first time in his reply to
Respondent’s opposition to the motion for a stay. (D.E. No. 18, Pet’r’s Reply to Opp’n to Stay

2-3). However, Petitioner did not allege good cause for failure to exhaust said claims and the
Court denied his request for a stay. (Id. at 37.)
Tn his motion for reconsideration, Petitioner alleges that the Court failed to take into
consideration all of the evidence he presented, namely the “newly discovered evidence” of the
handwriting expert.

(Mot. 4, D.E. No. 23.)

Petitioner further alleges that the Court’s

conclusions regarding the Narik Wilson letter and actions by Sergeant Ferrante were incorrect.
(Id. at 5-7.) Finally, with regard to the three claims that he raised for the first time in his reply,
Petitioner alleges that he was “under the understanding that when he submitted the claims in his
reply he was amending his petition as well.” (Id. at 9.)
II. DISCUSSION
Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) allows a party to seek reconsideration by the Court ofmatters which
the party believes the judge has “overlooked.” See Carney v. Pennsauken Twp. Police Dep’t, No.
11—7366, 2013 WL 4501454, at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 21, 2013) (citations omitted). “The standard for
reargument is high and reconsideration is to be granted only sparingly.” Yarrell v. Bartkowski,
No. 10—5337, 2012 WL 1600316, at *3 (D.N.J. May 7,2012) (citing United States v. Jones, 158
F.R.D. 309, 314 (D.N.J. 1994)). To be successful on a motion for reconsideration, a petitioner
has the burden to demonstrate: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the
availability ofnew evidence that was not available when the court [issued its order]; 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) (citation omitted); see also Berry v. Jacobs IMC,
LLC, 99 F. App’x 405, 410 (3d Cir. 2004).

2

Within this framework, the Court finds that reconsideration of its prior ruling is not

warranted. Petitioner has not demonstrated that this Court actually “overlooked” a factual or
legal issue that may alter the disposition of the matter, nor has Petitioner presented the Court with
changes in controlling law, newly discovered evidence, or a clear error of fact or law. Instead,
Petitioner’s motion appears to be an attempt to re-litigate the issues presented in his initial petition,
which was denied by this Court. The Court reviewed all of the submissions by Petitioner initially
and denied him relief. Simply because Petitioner disagrees with the Court’s prior Opinion that his
petition did not raise any valid constitutional claims does not present grounds to warrant
reconsideration.
With regard to the three new claims raised in the reply for the first time, even if this Court
had construed Petitioner’s raising of three new claims in his reply as an implied request to amend
his petition, as Petitioner alleges the Court should have done, Petitioner still failed to establish
good cause for failing to exhaust said claims. Though Petitioner blames ineffectiveness of his
first post-conviction relief attorney, Petitioner again failed to raise these claims in his second
post-conviction relief petition which was received by the state court in December 2012.
Moreover, as also previously stated, Petitioner has put forth no evidence or provided any
information which would indicate that these three claims have any merit. The Court properly
denied Petitioner’s request for a stay to exhaust the three new claims raised for the first time in
Petitioner’s reply.
III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
In conjunction with the foregoing, the Court is obligated to determine whether a certificate
of appealability shall issue. A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has

3

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). “A

petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the
district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues
presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Applying this standard, the Court finds that a certificate of appealability
shall not issue in this case.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration will be denied and a
certificate of appealability shall not issue. An appropriate order will be entered.

Dated:

4&,i
7
jQ / )c i/

y
2
g
ier
2 alas

4

.S D.J.