HUBBARD v. WARDEN, NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON et al
Filing
31
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 8/27/2018. (mps)
~\
RECEIVED
SEP 0 5 2018
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
FRANK HUBBARD,
AT 8:30
.M
WILLIAM T. WALSH
CLERK
HONORABLE ANNE E. THOMPSON
Petitioner,
Civil Action
No. 14-7258 (AET)
v.
STEPHEN D'ILIO, et al.,
OPINION
Respondents.
APPEARANCES:
Frank Hubbard, Petitioner pro se
47656/997956
New Jersey State Prison
P.O. Box 861
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney General
Off ice of the New Jersey Attorney General
R.J. Hughes Justice Complex
25 Market Street, P.O. Box 112
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Attorney for Respondents Stephen D'Ilio, Attorney General
of the State of New Jersey, and New Jersey Parole Board
THOMPSON, District Judge:
I •
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on pro se Petitioner Frank
Hubbard's June 21, 2018 motion seeking reconsideration (see ECF
No. 29) of the Court's June 13, 2018 denial of Petitioner's
amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
u.s.c.
§
and 28.)
2254.
(See June 13, 2018 Op. and Order, ECF Nos. 27
~\
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Local Civil Rule 7.1 allows a party to move for
reconsideration of "matter[s] or controlling decisions which the
party believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge has overlooked
If
L. Civ. R. 7.l(i).
Whether to grant a motion for
reconsideration is a matter within the Court's discretion, but
it should only be granted where such facts or legal authority
were indeed presented but overlooked.
Int'l Inc.,
See DeLong v. Raymond
622 F.2d 1135, 1140 (3d Cir. 1980), overruled on
other grounds by Croker v. Boeing Co.,
1981); see also Williams v. Sullivan,
662 F.2d 975 (3d Cir.
818 F. Supp. 92, 93
(D.N .J. 1993).
To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, ultimately, 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.
United States v. Jones, 158 F.R.D. 309, 314 (D.N.J. 1994).
2
I!Io DISCUSSION
Petitioner presents two claims in support of his
reconsideration motion.
(See,
generally, ECF No. 29.)
First, Petitioner asserts that the Court improperly relied
on two unpublished District of New Jersey cases, Righetti v.
Sherrer, No. 07-cv-1608, 2008 WL 4755745 (D.N.J. Oct. 28, 2008),
and Jenkins v. D'Amico, No. 06-cv-2027, 2007 WL 1797649 (D.N.J.
June 20, 2007).
Petitioner asserts that these two cases are
inapposite to his habeas claims.
The Court disagrees.
The Court already explained the import of Jenkins and
Righetti in its June 13, 2018 Opinion.
15.)
(See ECF No. 27 at 13-
The Court again notes that both Jenkins and Righetti
represent persuasive authority which support the Court's prior
determination "that the [New Jersey Parole] Board did not
violate Petitioner's rights under the Ex Post Facto Clause when
it considered the entirety of Petitioner's record [in denying
Petitioner parole in 2012] as a result of the 1997 amendment
[deleting the word
"new~
Parole Act of 1979] ."
from§ 30:4-123.56(c) of the New Jersey
(Id. at 13-14.)
Petitioner's
disagreement as to the relevance of Jenkins and Righetti is not
a proper basis for reconsideration, and Petitioner has not
provided the Court with any other reason for it to reconsider
its prior determinations regarding the import of these two cases
to the claims presented in Petitioner's amended habeas petition.
3
""
Second, Petitioner asserts that the Court failed to
consider the import of Mickens-Thomas v. Vaughn,
(3d Cir. 2004).
321 F.3d 374
This Court considered - and implicitly rejected
- Petitioner's previously-raised assertion that Mickens-Thomas
compels the Court to grant habeas relief.
In Mickens-Thomas,
the Third Circuit affirmed Eastern District of Pennsylvania
District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter's ruling that a 1996
amendment to Pennsylvania's parole law which ''placed primary
consideration on the risk to public safety by the parole
petitioner as the dominant factor in evaluating parole
applications" violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Id. at 376.
The Mickens-Thomas decision - which concerns a completely
different amendment to another state's parole law -- likewise
fails to provide a basis for the Court to reconsider its June
13, 2018 denial of Petitioner's amended habeas petition.
In sum, the Court, having read and considered Petitioner's
June 21, 2018 motion for reconsideration, concludes that
Petitioner's motion does not rely on an intervening change in
controlling law, the availability of new evidence not previously
available, or the need to correct a clear error of law or
prevent manifest injustice.
4
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Petitioner's motion for
reconsideration is denied.
An accompanying Order will be
entered.
·~,~
ANNE E. THOMPSON
~
U.S. District Judge
5
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?