SIMMS v. BARTOWSKI et al
Filing
31
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 11/13/2012. (mmh)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
THOMAS SIMMS,
Petitioner,
v.
GREG BARTKOWSKI, et al.,
Respondents.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-6084 (MLC)
O P I N I O N
THE COURT having issued an Opinion and Order on March 16,
2012 (“Opinion and Order”) denying the petition for a writ of
habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (dkt. entry nos. 2223); and petitioner moving for reconsideration of the Opinion and
Order pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) (dkt. entry no. 24,
Mot. for Recons.); and respondents opposing the motion (dkt.
entry no. 28, Resp’ts’ Opp’n Br.); and
IT APPEARING that a motion for reconsideration is “an
extremely limited procedural vehicle,” Tehan v. Disab. Mgmt.
Servs., Inc., 111 F.Supp.2d 542, 549 (D.N.J. 2000), that is
granted “very sparingly,” Cataldo v. Moses, 361 F.Supp.2d 420,
433 (D.N.J. 2004); and it appearing that its purpose is to
correct manifest errors of law or present newly-discovered
evidence, see Max’s Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999); and it further
appearing that a court may grant a motion for reconsideration if
the movant shows at least one of the following: (1) an
intervening change in the controlling law, (2) the availability
of new evidence that was previously unavailable, or (3) that it
is necessary to correct a clear error of law or fact or to
prevent manifest injustice, see id.; Cataldo, 361 F.Supp.2d at
432-33; and it also appearing that reconsideration is not
warranted where (1) the movant merely recapitulates the cases and
arguments previously analyzed by the court, see Arista Recs.,
Inc. v. Flea World, Inc., 356 F.Supp.2d 411, 416 (D.N.J. 2005);
see also Tehan, 111 F.Supp.2d at 549 (“Motions for
reconsideration will not be granted where a party simply asks the
court to analyze the same facts and cases it had already
considered in reaching its original decision.”), or (2) the
apparent purpose of the motion is for the movant to express
disagreement with the court’s initial decision, see Tehan, 111
F.Supp.2d at 549; and it further appearing that a motion should
only be granted where facts or controlling legal authority were
presented to, but not considered by, the court, see Mauro v. N.J.
Supreme Court, 238 Fed.Appx. 791, 793 (3d Cir. 2007); and
THE COURT having carefully reviewed the arguments of the
parties; and petitioner now arguing that the Court did not give
sufficient weight to his arguments regarding the verdict
“pattern” contained within the verdict sheet; and petitioner also
arguing that the Court failed to specifically discuss the
2
arguments raised in his reply brief regarding the “pattern,”
which he included in its entirety in his reconsideration brief;
and the Court noting that petitioner included arguments in his
reconsideration brief that were not included in his initial reply
brief, as the reply brief contained only two pages plus exhibits;
but the additional arguments contained in the reconsideration
brief, which were not in the original reply brief, not affecting
the Court’s analysis or determinations leading to the Opinion and
Order; and petitioner merely restating arguments previously made
to, and considered by, this Court; and petitioner merely
asserting his disagreement with the Opinion and Order; and
THE COURT finding that petitioner (1) has not established
that facts or controlling legal authority were presented to, but
overlooked by, the Court, see Mauro, 238 Fed.Appx. at 793, and
(2) is merely recapitulating the arguments previously raised and
asserting his disagreement with the Court’s decision, see Arista
Recs., 356 F.Supp.2d at 416; Tehan, 111 F.Supp.2d at 549; and the
Court finding that petitioner has not shown a clear error of law
or fact, see Max’s Seafood Cafe, 176 F.3d at 677; and the Court
concluding that reconsideration of the Opinion and Order is
therefore inappropriate; and the Court thus intending to deny the
motion for reconsideration; and the Court having considered the
matter without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rules 7.1(i)
3
and 78.1(b); and for good cause appearing, the Court will issue
an appropriate order.
s/ Mary L. Cooper
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge
Dated:
November 13, 2012
4
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?