BAADHIO v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Filing
12
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 11/13/2012. (mmh)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RANDY BAADHIO,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Respondent.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-1235 (MLC)
O P I N I O N
THE COURT having issued an Opinion and Order on September
12, 2011 (“Opinion and Order”) dismissing the petition for writ
of coram nobis (dkt. entry nos. 7 & 8); and it appearing that
petitioner is moving for reconsideration of the Opinion and Order
pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) (dkt. entry no. 11); 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
petitioner; and petitioner arguing that the petition should now
be considered a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 as he is now in “custody” (dkt. entry no. 11, Mot.
for Recons. at 1); 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
(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
finding that while petitioner may currently be in the custody of
the State of New Jersey, it does not appear that he is in custody
pursuant to the conviction he challenges in his petition; and the
Court finding that petitioner in fact has a habeas petition
pending before the Court challenging his current custody, see
Baadhio v. State of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 11-7120 (JAP);
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) 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
3
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?