Hauman v. Coleman et al

Filing 54

ORDER denying ptnr's motion for reconsideration 49 & noting upon review of mat'ls submitted by the partie, ct will determine whether an expanded record or evidentiary hearing is warranted. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 7/17/17. (ki)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DARIN L. HAUMAN, Petitioner v. BRIAN V. COLEMAN, et al., Respondents : : : : : : : : : CIVIL NO. 1:15-CV-1159 (Chief Judge Conner) ORDER AND NOW, this 17th day of July, 2017, upon consideration of petitioner‟s motion (Doc. 49) for reconsideration, wherein he requests that the court reconsider its order (Doc. 45) denying his motion “to defer submission of a brief in support of the habeas petition and begin fact-developing procedures”, in which the court noted that petitioner had previously filed a reply to respondents‟ answer, and it appearing that petitioner fails to demonstrate reliance on one of three major grounds needed for a proper motion for reconsideration, North River Ins. Co. v. Cigna Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995) (stating three major grounds include “(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence [not available previously]; [or], (3) the need to correct clear error [of law] or prevent manifest injustice.” ), but, instead, simply disagrees with the court‟s decision1, see Waye v. First Citizen‟s Nat‟l Bank, 846 F. Supp. 310, 314 (M.D. Pa. 1994) (finding that “[a] motion for reconsideration is not to be used as a means to reargue matters already argued and disposed of.”), aff‟d, 31 F.3d 1174 (3d Cir. 1994); see also Database America, Inc. v. Bellsouth Adver. & Publ‟g Corp., 825 F. Supp. 1216, 1220 (D.N.J. 1993) (citations omitted) (holding “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court‟s decision, and „recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party‟s burden.‟”), it is hereby ORDERED that petitioner‟s motion (Doc. 49) is DENIED. Upon review of the materials submitted by the parties, the court will determine whether an expanded record or evidentiary hearing is warranted. See R. GOVERNING § 2254 CASES 7, 8(a). /S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania Petitioner again asserts that his traverse is incomplete in that it does not encompass all of his arguments, and the record is incomplete. (Doc. 50, at 8-9). The court finds that the record contains a wealth of information concerning petitioner‟s underlying criminal case, and petitioner has had a full and complete opportunity to file a habeas petition and lengthy supplement thereto. (Docs. 1, 24, 25). 1

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?