WILSON v. SOMERSET COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE et al
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Freda L. Wolfson on 10/7/2016. (mmh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
DAVID WILSON,
Civil Action No. 15-6034 (FLW)
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
v.
SOMERSET COUNTY PROSECUTORS
OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No.
12) of the Court’s Order, and accompanying Opinion, dismissing Plaintiff’s federal claims,
denying supplemental jurisdiction, and remanding the case to state court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367(c). (See ECF Nos. 9, 10, 11). Defendants have opposed the motion. (ECF No.) For the
reasons explained below, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.
“[R]econsideration is an extraordinary remedy, that is granted very sparingly.” Brackett
v. Ashcroft, No. 03-3988, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21312, at *5, 2003 WL 22303078 (D.N.J. Oct.
7, 2003). A court will grant a motion for reconsideration only if the movant establishes: (1) an
intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not
previously available; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact, or to prevent manifest
injustice. Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.
1999) (citing N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)).
Under Local Civil Rule 7.1(i), a party making a motion for reconsideration must submit a “brief
1
setting forth concisely the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge ...
has overlooked.” D.N.J. Civ. R. 7.1(i). In other words, the movant may address only matters that
were presented to the Court, but were not considered by the Court in making the decision at
issue. United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F.Supp.2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999).
Here, the motion does not present an intervening change in controlling law, evidence that
was not previously available, the need to correct a clear error of law or fact, or to prevent a
manifest injustice. As the basis for reconsideration, Plaintiff contends that his Amended
Complaint was “never about a drug court application” under N.J.S.A. 2C:35–14 and instead was
“about a custody change application” under New Jersey Court Rule 3:21–10. As explained by
the New Jersey Appellate Division
N.J.S.A. 2C:35–14 controls when a defendant can be sentenced to
special probation. Rule 3:21–10 is the mechanism through which a
defendant can, among other things, file a motion for change of
custody after a sentence has already been imposed. The rule
provides that a court may change a custodial sentence to permit
entry of the defendant into a custodial or non-custodial treatment
or rehabilitation program for drug or alcohol abuse. R. 3:21–
10(b)(1).
State v. Ross, No. A-2367-12T4, 2014 WL 7894502, at *2 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Feb. 20,
2015) (emphasis added). As noted by Defendants in their opposition to the motion for
reconsideration (See ECF No. 15), Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint never mentions “custody
change application” or any facts that suggest that he filed a motion for change of custody after
sentence was imposed. Rather, the Amended Complaint repeatedly refers to the denial of
Plaintiff’s “drug treatment and bail reduction applications[.]” (See, e.g., Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 7-11.)
Obviously, an application for reduction in bail would take place prior to sentencing. The dates
provided in the Amended Complaint also suggest that his application for admission to the drug
rehabilitation program was made prior to sentencing. The Amended Complaint lists the date of
2
Plaintiff’s arrest as January 20, 2015, and alleges that he sought release on bail and admission in
to a drug rehabilitation program. (ECF No. 15-6034, Am. Compl. at 1-2, 7.) He alleges that
Somerset County Prosecutor Matthew Murphy submitted a brief opposing the applications on
March 20, 2015. (Id.) It appears from the State of New Jersey Department of Corrections
Inmate Locator that Plaintiff was sentenced on July 17, 2015 (see NJDOC Inmate Locator,
available at //www20.state.nj.us/DOC_Inmate/details?x=1028298&n=0); thus, it appears that
Plaintiff was sentenced after his application for admission to a drug rehabilitation program. As
such, the Court applied N.J.S.A. 2C:35–14 in assessing his claims for relief. Furthermore,
although Plaintiff contends that there is a “big difference” between the two types of motions, he
fails to explain how this alleged difference would have affected the outcome of his case.
Because Plaintiff’s submission does not meet the high standard for reconsideration, the Court
will deny the motion. An appropriate Order follows.
/s/ Freda L. Wolfson
Freda L. Wolfson, U.S.D.J.
Date: October 7, 2016
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?