WEAVER v. PALAKOVICH et al

Filing 48

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER (DOC. NO. 46) BY HARVEY WEAVER IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. WILLIAM DITTER, JR ON 3/5/13. 3/5/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED. (jpd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HARVEY WEAVER
v.
JOHN A. PALAKOVICH, et al.

:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

No. 10-3888

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. WILLIAM DITTER, JR.
AND NOW, this 4th day of March, 2013, upon consideration of petitioner’s pro se
motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 46) of my February 12, 2013, Memorandum and
Order (Doc. Nos. 41, 42), I make the following findings and conclusions:
1. On August 3, 2010, Harvey Weaver (“Weaver”) filed a successive petition for
writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) alleging various constitutional violations. On
December 23, 2010, the Court of Appeals granted Weaver leave to proceed on his first
claim, an asserted Brady violation (Doc. No. 5). After a close and objective review of the
arguments and evidence, I found that Weaver’s claim was meritless. As a result, I denied
the petition with prejudice and without a hearing, and ordered that a certificate of
appealability not be issued. See Weaver v. Palakovich, No. 10-3888 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 12,
2013) (Doc. Nos. 41, 42). Presently before the Court is Weaver’s motion for
reconsideration, asking the Court to withdraw its order and grant habeas relief on his
Brady claim.
2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 7.1(g) of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania allow parties to file motions
for reconsideration or amendment of a judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); E.D. Pa. R. Civ.
P. 7.1(g). The scope of a motion for reconsideration is extremely limited. Such motions
are not to be used as an opportunity to relitigate the case; rather, they may be used only to
correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. Howard
Hess Dental Labs., Inc. v. Dentsply Int’l Inc., 602 F.3d 237, 251 (3d Cir. 2010).
“Accordingly, a judgment may be altered or amended [only] if the party seeking
reconsideration shows at least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in
the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the
court [denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus]; or (3) the need to correct a clear
error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Id. (quotation marks omitted)

(emphasis added). Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 415 (3d Cir. 2011).
3. Weaver’s Rule 59(e) motion must be denied because it is an attempt to
relitigate his habeas petition. Weaver argues that I must re-examine my decision because
of a clear error of law or fact and manifest injustice. In support thereof, he contends that
this court failed to properly consider his claim that a Brady violation occurred because the
results of the rape kit performed on the victim, Patricia Mason, were not disclosed to
defense counsel. Weaver merely sets forth the same arguments presented, and rejected, in
his original habeas petition. In my memorandum and order, I denied Weaver’s claim and
found that Weaver failed to allege a constitutional violation which merited habeas relief.
For the reasons set forth in my original Memorandum and Order of February 12, 2013, I
once again conclude that Weaver’s Brady claim is without merit.
4. Weaver’s argument that I erred in finding no Brady violation is without merit.
Weaver does not point to any “new” factual or legal issue that would alter my disposition
of this matter, nor does he present any clear error of law or fact that would necessitate a
different ruling. Furthermore, he has not demonstrated that manifest injustice will result
from my ruling.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to reconsider (Doc. No. 46)
by Harvey Weaver is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that for the reasons set forth at
the conclusion of my memorandum of February 12, 2013 (Doc. No. 41), there is no need
for an evidentiary hearing and no certificate of appealability will be issued pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2253 because Weaver has failed to make a substantial showing of denial of a
constitutional right.

s/J.William Ditter, Jr.
J. WILLIAM DITTER, JR., J

2