LAMPON-PAZ v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al
OPINION AND ORDER denying 65 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 9/19/17. (sr, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civ. No. 16-9071 (KM) (JBC)
OPINION and ORDER
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND
KEVIN MCNULTY. U.S.D.J.:
The pro se plaintiff, Manuel Lampon-Paz, brings this action against the
United States Department of Justice and certain unknown defendants. The
Court has entered an Opinion and Order (“Op.”, ECF no. 64) denying the
plaintiffs’ motion (ECF no. 55) for a temporary restraining order pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b); his motion (ECF no. 62) to order Defendants to identify an
unknown telephone caller, which may be construed as a petition for a writ of
mandamus; and for other relief (ECF nos. 33, 53). Now before the Court is Mr.
Lampon-Paz’s motion for reconsideration. (ECF no. 65) The motion for
reconsideration will be denied.
The standards governing a motion for reconsideration are well settled.
See generally D.N.J. Loc. Civ. 1?. 7.1(i). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary
remedy,” to be granted “sparingly.” NL Indus. Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co.,
935 F. Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J. 1996). Generally, reconsideration is confined to
three scenarios: (1) when there has been an intervening change in the law; (2)
when new evidence has become available; or (3) when necessary to correct a
clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. See North River Ins. Co. v.
CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995); Carmichael v.
Everson, 2004 WL 1587894, at *1 (D,N.J. May 21, 2004). Local Rule 7.1(i)
requires such a motion to specifically identify “the matter or controlling
decisions which the party believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge has
overlooked.” Id.; see also Egloff v. New Jersey Air Nat’l Guard, 684 F. Supp.
1275, 1279 (D.N.J. 1988). Evidence or arguments that were available at the
time of the original decision will not support a motion for reconsideration.
Damiano v. Sony Music Entm’t, Inc., 975 F. Supp. 623, 636 (D.N.J. 1997); see
also North River Ins. Co., 52 F.3d at 1218; Bapu Corp. v. Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc.,
2010 WL 5418972, at *4 (D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2010) (citing P. Schoenfeld Asset
Cendant Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d 349, 352 (D.N.J. 2001)).
The allegations and arguments presented on reconsideration are very
nearly identical to those presented in the original motions. They involve, among
other things, allegations of abuse by “Mr. 0” and “Chase”, an anonymous
phone call, and the government’s failure to prosecute plaintiff or his ex-wife for
illegal entry into the United States. There are other allegations as well, which
are summarized in the prior Opinion and will not be repeated here.
My prior Opinion discussed at length the reasons that the requested
injunctive and mandamus relief is unavailable—in some respects, because
there is no cause of action as a matter of law, and in others because the
allegations are simply too vague and unsupported by evidence. At any rate, the
motion contains no new or overlooked matter, and therefore is inappropriate
for reconsideration under the standards stated above.
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS this 19th day of September, 2017
ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF no. 65) is
K VIN MCNULTY
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?