TRAPP v. TASSINI et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 2/5/2016. (km)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

SHAWN TRAPP,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 14-6885 (MAS) (DEA)
v.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
JOHN R. TASSIN!, et al.,
Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Shawn Trapp' s ("Plaintiff') Motion for
Reconsideration, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.l(i), of the Court's July 15, 2015 Order (ECF No.
20), which granted Defendants the Division of Child Protection & Permanency, the Honorable
Kathleen A. Sheedy, J.S.C., and the Honorable John R. Tassini, J.S.C. ("State Defendants"); and
Defendants David and Janee Prown's ("Prown Defendants") motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 5, 15)
and denied Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 4). (ECF No. 21.) State and Prown
Defendants filed opposition briefs. (ECF Nos. 22, 23 1.) The Court, having considered the parties'
submissions, decides the matter without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1 and
denies Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.
Reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 7.1 is an extraordinary remedy that is rarely
granted. Interfaith Cmty. Org. v. Honeywell Int'/, Inc., 215 F. Supp. 2d 482, 507 (D.N.J. 2002).
A motion for reconsideration may be based on one of three separate grounds: (1) an intervening
change in controlling law; (2) new evidence not previously available; or (3) to correct a clear error

1

Prown Defendants also "urge the Court to order Plaintiff to show cause why he should not be
sanctioned if he continues to pursue these frivolous claims." (Prown Defs.' Opp'n Br. 2, ECF
No. 23.)

oflaw or to prevent manifest injustice. See id. A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity
to raise new matters or arguments that could have been raised before the original decision was
made. See Bowers v. NCAA, 130 F. Supp. 2d 610, 612-13 (D.N.J. 2001). Nor is a motion for
reconsideration an opportunity to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought through. See
Interfaith Cmty. Org., 215 F. Supp. 2d at 507.

As discussed below, here Plaintiff has not

demonstrated that the extraordinary remedy of reconsideration is warranted.
In its July 15, 2015 decision, the Court found that Plaintiffs claims against State
Defendants are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and absolute judicial
immunity. (July 15, 2015 Op. 6-9.) In his Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that
sovereign immunity does not apply because State Defendants "were lawbreakers and did not have
jurisdiction to render any judgment." (Pl.'s Moving Br. 1-2.) Plaintiff already made this argument
in his opposition to State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Pl.'s Opp'n to State Defs.' Mot. to
Dismiss 2, ECF No. 7.) Thus, the Court denies Plaintiffs request to reconsider this argument. See
Interfaith Cmty. Org., 215 F. Supp. 2d at 507 ("It is improper on a motion for reconsideration to

ask the court to rethink what it has already thought through-rightly or wrongly.") (citation omitted).
In its July 15, 2015 decision, the Court also found that Plaintiff failed to assert a cognizable
§ 1983 claim against Prown Defendants. (July 15, 2015 Op. 9-11.) In support of his Motion for

Reconsideration, Plaintiff fails to offer any basis for reconsidering this decision. Plaintiff merely
asserts that "[t]here is legal sufficiency [sic] to show Plaintiff is entitled to relief under his
Complaint." (Pl.'s Moving Br. 3.) This conclusory assertion does not warrant reconsideration.
See Interfaith Cmty. Org., 215 F. Supp. 2d at 507 (describing permissible grounds for granting a

motion for reconsideration).

2

Accordingly, IT IS, on this

5th

day of February 2016, ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion

for Reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall close this case.

s/Michael A. Shipp
MICHAEL A. SHIPP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3