GAGE v. PROVENZANO et al

Filing 58

OPINION fld. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 10/4/16. (sr, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

THOMAS I. GAGE,

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-5700 (JLL)

Plaintiff,

0PINI0N

V.

SHERIFF FRANK J. PROVENZANO, et al.,:
Defendants.

LINARES, District Judge

THE COURT, in an order and judgment dated September 21, 2016 (hereinafter,
“September 2016 Order”): (1) granted the motion by the defendant Russell W. Leffert for
summary judgment in his favor and against the plaintiff; (2) entered judgment in favor of
Leffert; and (3) closed the action because no claims remained viable. (See dkt. 55; see
also dkt. 54 (opinion underlying the September 2016 Order).) The pro se plaintiff has
now filed a letter request for reconsideration of the September 2016 Order.

(Scc dkt. 56

(plaintiffs “objection on the rulings”); see also dkt. 57 (Leffert’s letter acknowledging
receipt of the plaintiffs letter request).) çç L.Civ. R. 7.1(1).
A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION is an extremely limited procedural
vehicle. See Tehan v. Disab. Mgrnt. Sen’s., Inc., 111 F.Supp.2d 542, 549 (D.N.J. 2000).

District courts, which enjoy the discretion to consider motions for reconsideration,
grant such motions sparingly. See Caver v. City of Trenton, 420 f.3d 243, 258 (3d Cir.
2005); Cataldo v. Moses, 361 F.Supp.2d 420, 433 (D.N.J. 2004). A movant seeking
reconsideration must show: (I) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence that was previously unavailable; or (3) the need to correct a
clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. See Max’s Seafood Café ex rel.
Lou Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
A MOVANT seeking reconsideration may not relitigate old matters, and may not
raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised before the entry of
judgment. See Boretsky v. Governor of N.J., 433 Fed.Appx. 73, 78 (3d Cir. 2011);
Dunidey v. Mellon Investor Servs. LLC, 378 Fed.Appx. 169, 172 (3d Cir. 2010);
Summerfield v. Eguifax Info. Sews. LLC, 264 F.R.D. 133, 145 (D.NJ. 2009).
THE PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST for reconsideration, even when liberally

construed in view of the plaintiffs pro se status, does not raise an intervening change in
the controlling law, any previously unavailable evidence, a clear error of law or fact, or
an instance of manifest injustice. The plaintiff simply repeats, almost word for word, the
same arguments that he raised in opposition to Leffert’s original motion for summary
judgment. (Compare dkt. 51 (plaintiffs opposition to Leffert’s original motion)

dkt.

56.) The Court thus intends to deny the plaintiffs request for reconsideration. c
Jackson v. City of Phila., 535 Fed.Appx. 64, 69 (3d Cir. 2013) (noting the propriety of

2

______

the district court’s denial of a reconsideration motion because the movant “did not argue
any of the limited grounds for reconsideration”).
THE COURT will enter an appropriate order.

L. LINARES
States District Judge
Dated: October

,2016

3