HARRIS v. BENNET et al

Filing 80

OPINION & ORDER, that Plaintiff's motion 70 for trial by jury, remand and Reconsideration is DENIED; and it is further Ordered that the Clerk shall close this case and mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to Plaintiff by regular and certified mail return receipt requested. (7012-3050-0001-0972-5941). Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 1/26/2018. (JB, )

Not for Publication
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

GOLDA D. HARRIS,

Plaintiff
Civil Action No. 13-3879
V.

OPINION & ORDER
ERIC BENNET, et al,

Defendants.

John Michael Vazguez, U.S.D.J.

This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff Golda D. Harris’ motion for reconsideration
of this Court’s Order dismissing her Complaint with prejudice. D.E. 70, 65. Plaintiffs Complaint
alleges she was wrongly terminated from public housing in Plainfield, New Jersey. The Court
reviewed submissions made in support of the motion and considered the motion without oral
argument pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) and L. Civ. R. 78.1(b). F or the reasons that follow, the
Plaintiffs motion is DENIED.
I.

Background & Procedural History

The factual background of this case is taken from this Court’s May 2, 2017 Opinion
denying Plaintiffs motion for default and summary judgment, and dismissing the Complaint.
D.E. 64. The crux of Plaintiffs allegations is that Defendants wrongfully evicted Plaintiff from
her home without due process in violation of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1427d(k) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Complaint (“Compl.”) at ¶J2, 6. In Plaintiffs “statement of claims,” she alleges that

1

1. Defendants Bennett, Wood, Sutton and Smith did not allow or
give notice to Plaintiff of the notice of termination or the grievance
process, even after plaintiff requested it.
2. The above defendants did not follow the HUD %rievance
procedures concerning eviction and tenancy terminations.
3. The above defendants denied plaintiff an opportunity to file a
timely appeal or any appeal.
4. The defendants did not provide safety maintenance and
insurance on the premises causing plaintiff injuries, debts, and
damages.
5. The defendants perjured affidavits to avoid responsibility,
restitution, compensation, and discovery.
6. I reserve the right to amend the claims.

Compi. at ¶6. The relief Plaintiff seeks, as quoted directly from the Complaint, states as follows:
1. Removal of LT-801-09 and LT-9518-08 to district
court/expedited status.
2. Remove the S4,560.OO judgment against p1.
3. Removal of possession of the premises.
4. Joinder of the matters to the LT’s and
5. Reinstatement to the Section $ Program upon release from
incarceration.

6. Restitution, judgment for: reimbursement, compensation, and
injuries, punitive & nominal.
7. Settlement of the suit, if possible.
8. Discovery from Defendants

--

proof of insurance, etc.

2

Compi. at ¶7. Plaintiff seeks damages from Defendants Plainfield Housing Authority for
$44,384; Bennet for $27,165; Smith for $25,000; Wood for $5,000; and Sutton for $5,000.
Plaintiff also seeks prejudgment interest on these amounts.1 D.E. 61.
Plaintiff filed her Complaint on June 30, 2013. D.E. 1. She filed her application to
proceed informapauperis on January 8, 2014. D.E. 4. Her application to proceed informa
pauperis was granted on September 19, 2014, but it does not appear the requisite screening of
her Complaint was performed pursuant to 2$ U.S.C. §1915(e)(2). D.E. 11. Plaintiff then
requested an entry of default, which was granted on february 20, 205. D.E. 22. She then filed a
motion for default judgment on March 5, 2015. D .E. 2015. Defendants appeared and submitted
a motion to set aside the default on April 20, 2015. Defendants’ motion was granted, and they
answered the Complaint on June 30, 2015. D.E. 26, 29.
Plaintiff then filed a motion to reinstate the default judgment and vacate Defendants’
Answer. D.E. 34. The Court granted Plaintiffs motion on March 21, 2016. D.E. 3$.
Defendants again filed a motion to set aside the default on June 7, 2016. D.E. 49. The Court
granted Defendants’ motion on October 28, 2016. D.E. 55.
Plaintiff then filed a motion for re-entry of default and summary judgment. D.E. 56. The
Court denied both motions. D.E. 64. In denying the motion for default judgment, the Court
deterniined that the Complaint did not sufficiently plead a cause of action and that Plaintiff had
not submitted adequate proof of damages. Id. at 7. The Court then performed a screening of the
Complaint, which had not previously occurred, and found that Plaintiff had not made plausible

1

Plaintiff appears to be willing to forgo pre-judgment interest if her motion for reconsideration is
granted. D.E. 70 at pg. 5. She has also included new damages numbers in her motion, asking for
$28,845.00 for damages caused by Bennett, $5,000 for Sutton, $5,000 for Wood, $25,894 for
Defendants’ former attorney Dan Smith, and $49,768 for the Plainfield Housing Authority. Id. at
pg. 6.
3

allegations in the Complaint. Id. at 8-9. As a result, the Court dismissed the Complaint without
prejudice, allowing Plaintiff to amend the Complaint within 45 days. Id. Plaintiff failed to do
so, and the Court dismissed the Complaint with prejudice on July 14, 2017. D.E. 68.
Plaintiff then filed a motion for trial by jury, reconsideration, and remand on August 2,
2017. D.E. 70. Plaintiff has also filed an appeal of the dismissal of the Complaint to the Third
Circuit. D.E. 72. The Third Circuit has stayed the appeal pending the outcome of this motion.
D.E. 74.
II.

Standard of Review
At this stage in the proceedings, afier the Complaint has been dismissed, neither Plaintiffs

motion for trial by jury or for remand are appropriate. Thus, the Court will only rule on the motion
for reconsideration.

In the District of New Jersey, motions for reconsideration can be made

pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(i). The rule provides that such motions must be made within 14
days of the entry of an order. Substantively, a motion for reconsideration is viable when one of
three scenarios is present: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) the availability of
new evidence not previously available, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent
manifest injustice. Carmichael v. Everson, No. 03-4787, 2004 WL 1587894, at *1 (D.N.J. May
21, 2004) (citations omitted).
A motion for reconsideration, however, does not entitle a party to a second bite at the
apple. Therefore, a motion for reconsideration is inappropriate when a party merely disagrees
with a court’s ruling or when a party simply wishes to re-argue or re-hash its original motion.
Sch. Specialty, Inc. v. ferrentino, No. 14-4507, 2015 WL 4602995, *23 (D.N.J. July 30, 2015);
see also Ftorliam Park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron US.A., 680 F. Supp. 159, 162 (D.N.J. 1988).
Moreover, a motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to raise matters that could have

4

been raised before the original decision was reached. Bowers v. NCAA, 130 F. Supp. 2d 610,
613 (D.N.J. 2001).
III.

Analysis
Plaintiff does not argue either that there has been an intervening change in the law or that

new evidence is available. At best, Plaintiff is moving pursuant to the third prong as to clear error
and manifest injustice. She asserts that the Court has shown bias against her and has impermissibly
favored Defendants in dismissing the Complaint. However, she presents no evidence or support
for this argument, other than her statement that by dismissing her Complaint, and holding her to
the standard of an attorney rather than apro se litigant, the Court has treated her unfairly. However,
realizing that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, that Defendants’ have acted in a dilatory manner, and
that Plaintiffs Complaint was never properly screened, the Court gave Plaintiff an opportunity to
amend her Complaint to address the deficiencies in her original Complaint. For some unexplained
reason, Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. Because Plaintiff has failed to make a proper
showing that entitles her to the “extraordinary remedy” of reconsideration, her motion is denied.
Brackett v. Ashcroft, 2003 WL 22303078, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 7, 2007).
IV.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, and for good cause shown,
IT IS on this

26th

day of January,

ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for trial by jury, remand, and reconsideration is
DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall close this case; and it is further

5

ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to
Plaintiff by regular mail and certified mail return receipt requested.

JhiMichae1 Va U.S.D.J.

6