GUMBS v. O'CONNOR et al

Filing 174

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 6/10/2015. (mmh)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
KEVIN GUMBS,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
DETECTIVE JOHN O’CONNOR, et al., :
:
Defendants.
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-1520 (MLC)
MEMORANDUM OPINION

THE COURT, in an order and judgment dated May 8, 2015 (“May 2015 Order”):
(1) granted a motion for summary judgment by certain defendants (“Moving Defendants”);
(2) denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment; (3) entered judgment in
favor of the Moving Defendants and against the plaintiff as to the federal claims asserted
against the Moving Defendants; and (4) dismissed the remaining state law claims without
prejudice, with leave to the plaintiff to reinstate those remaining state law claims in state
court. (See dkt. 169, 5-8-15 Order & J.; see also dkt. 170, 5-8-15 Mem. Op.) The
plaintiff — who is pro se — now moves, in effect, for reconsideration of the May 2015
Order. (See dkt. 172, 5-18-2015 Pl. Letter; dkt. 173, 6-9-2015 Pl. Letter.)
A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION is an extremely limited procedural
vehicle. See Tehan v. Disab. Mgmt. Servs., 111 F.Supp.2d 542, 549 (D.N.J. 2000).
District courts, which enjoy 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: (1) 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);
Dunkley v. Mellon Investor Servs., 378 Fed.Appx. 169, 172 (3d Cir. 2010); Summerfield
v. Equifax Info. Servs., 264 F.R.D. 133, 145 (D.N.J. 2009).
THE PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST for reconsideration, even when liberally
construed in view of the plaintiff’s pro se status, does not raise an intervening change in
controlling law, previously-unavailable evidence, a clear error of law or fact, or an
instance of manifest injustice. The Court thus intends to deny the motion for
reconsideration. See Jackson v. City of Phila., 535 Fed.Appx. 64, 69 (3d Cir. 2013)
(noting propriety of denial of reconsideration motion that did not rest on one “of the
limited grounds for reconsideration”).
THE COURT, for good cause appearing, will enter an appropriate order.

s/ Mary L. Cooper
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge
Dated: June 10, 2015

2