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)

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