ALLEN v. MR. STEPHEN D'ILIO et al

Filing 34

OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Brian R. Martinotti on 09/15/2020. (jdb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_________________________________________
JOHN LEE ALLEN, Jr.,
:
:
Petitioner,
:
Case No. 3:14-cv-4492 (BRM)
:
v.
:
:
STEPHEN D’ILIO, et al.,
:
OPINION
:
Respondents.
:
_________________________________________ :
MARTINOTTI, DISTRICT JUDGE
Before this Court is Petitioner’s, John Lee Allen, Jr. (“Petitioner” or “Allen”), application
for reconsideration of the dismissal without prejudice due to untimeliness on his petition for writ
of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 30.) For the following reasons, Petitioner’s application for
reconsideration is DENIED.
I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 29, 2020, this Court granted Respondents’ motion to dismiss Petitioner’s habeas

petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 due to untimeliness. (See ECF 26 & 27.) However, the
dismissal was without prejudice to give Petitioner time to file a supplemental brief arguing why
his habeas petition and/or the claims therein should be considered timely. Petitioner did not file a
supplemental brief. Instead, in July 2020, he filed what has been labeled by the Clerk’s Office as
an application for reconsideration of this Court’s June 29, 2020 opinion and order. (See ECF 30.)
Petitioner also filed a notice of appeal of the June 29, 2020 opinion and order. (See ECF 32.)
II.

DECISION
Local Civil Rule 7.1 allows a party to seek a motion for re-argument or reconsideration of

“matter[s] or controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge has

overlooked.” L.Civ.R. 7.1(i). To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must show:
“(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not
available when the court . . . [rendered the judgment in question]; or (3) the need to correct a clear
error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” U.S. ex rel. Shumann v. Astrazeneca Pharm.
L.P., 769 F.3d 837, 848-49 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Max’s Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou–Ann, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)). The standard of review involved in a motion for
reconsideration is high and relief is to be granted sparingly. See United States v. Jones, 158 F.R.D.
309, 314 (D.N.J. 1994). “The Court will grant a motion for reconsideration only where its prior
decision has overlooked a factual or legal issue that may alter the disposition of the matter. The
word ‘overlooked’ is the operative term in the Rule.” Andreyko v. Sunrise Sr. Living, Inc., 993 F.
Supp. 2d 475, 478 (D.N.J. 2014) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Mere
disagreement with the Court’s decision is not a basis for reconsideration. See United States v.
Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999).
Petitioner’s presents no basis for his relief in his application for reconsideration. Instead,
he requests a copy of a docket sheet in this case as well as a copy of this Court’s August 14, 2019
order. Accordingly, the application for reconsideration is denied. However, this Court will provide
Petitioner copies of the documents he has requested in this instance.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s application for reconsideration is denied. An

appropriate order will be entered.

DATED: September 15, 2020

/s/Brian R. Martinotti
BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2