LUCAS v. PIAZZA et al

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH AT THE CONCLUSION OF MY MEMORANDUM OF 8/5/2010 (DOC. NO. 27), THERE IS NO NEED FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALA BILITY WILL BE ISSUED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SECTION 2253 BECAUSE LUCAS HAS FAILED TO MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LOWELL A. REED, JR ON 11/16/2010. 11/18/2010 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(jmf, )

LUCAS v. PIAZZA et al

Doc. 43

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA K IR K LUCAS v. J O S E P H PIAZZA, et al. : : : : : C IV IL ACTION

N o . 07-3556

M E M O R A N D U M AND ORDER L O W E L L A. REED, JR., Sr. J. A N D NOW, this 16th day of November, 2010, upon consideration of petitioner's m o tio n for reconsideration (Doc. No. 40) of my August 5, 2010, memorandum and order (D o c . Nos. 27, 28), as well as Respondents' response thereto (Doc. No. 42), the Court m a k e s the following findings and conclusions: 1 . On August 20, 2007, Kirk Lucas ("Lucas") filed a petition for writ of habeas c o rp u s (Doc. No. 1) alleging due process violations during his resentencing.1 After a c lo s e and objective review of the arguments and evidence, I found that Lucas's claims w e re meritless. As a result, I denied the petition with prejudice and without a hearing, a n d ordered that a certificate of appealability not be issued. See Lucas v. Piazza, No. 073 5 5 6 (E.D. Pa. August 5, 2010) (Doc. Nos. 27, 28). Presently before the Court is Lucas's m o tio n for reconsideration, asking the Court to withdraw its order and grant habeas relief o n his sentencing claims. 2 . Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 7.1(g) of the United S ta te s District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania allow parties to file motions f o r reconsideration or amendment of a judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); E.D. Pa. R. Civ. P . 7.1(g). These motions should be granted sparingly, reconsidering the issues only w h e n : (1) there has been an intervening change in controlling law; (2) new evidence has b e c o m e available; or (3) there is a need to prevent manifest injustice or correct a clear e rro r of law or fact. North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218

Although Lucas also presented a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, he asked this court to delete that claim from his habeas petition. See Lucas v. Piazza, No. 07-3556, at 7 (E.D. Pa. August 5, 2010) (Doc. No. 40).

1

Dockets.Justia.com