Tellier v. Perdue

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM re petr's MOTION for Relief from Judgment 6 (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 2/16/17. (ma)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROBIN TELLIER,
Petitioner
vs.
RUSSELL PERDUE, WARDEN,
Respondent

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:16-CV-01496

(Judge Rambo)

MEMORANDUM
Background
On July 21, 2016, Robin Tellier, an inmate at
the Federal Correctional Institution at Schuylkill,
Minersville, Pennsylvania (“FCI-Schuylkill”), filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§2241, in which he named the Warden of FCI-Schuylkill as
the Respondent. (Doc. 1.) On July 28, 2016, Tellier
submitted the $5.00 filing fee.
Tellier set forth his allegations on a form §
2241 petition routinely provided to federal inmates.
(Id.) Tellier also submitted a typewritten supplemental
petition on August 8, 2016. (Doc. 3.) Tellier challenged
the outcome of a prison disciplinary proceeding which
occurred on November 21, 2012.

Tellier’s petition

revealed that the Discipline Hearing Officer, after
finding Tellier guilty of Incident Report 233717153,
imposed sanctions which did not include loss of Good
Conduct Time credit for the disciplinary infraction,
i.e., Offense Code 296, use of mail for abuses other
than criminal activity.

By memorandum and order of

December 5, 2016, the court dismissed Tellier’s
petition. (Doc. 4.)

In sum, the court concluded the

petition was not viable because he did no lose Good
Conduct Time credit as a sanction. See Leamer v. Fauver,
288 F.3d 532, 540-42 (3d Cir. 2002).

The court

incorporates herein by reference the reasoning set forth
in the memorandum of December 5, 2016.
On February 6, 2017, Tellier filed a motion for
reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure which provides that a court may
relieve a party of a judgment based on mistake,
inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. For the
reasons set forth below the motion will be denied.

2

Discussion
A motion for reconsideration is a device of
limited utility.

It may be used only to seek

remediation for manifest errors of law or fact or to
present newly discovered evidence which, if discovered
previously, might have affected the court's decision.
Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906 (3d Cir. 1985),
cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 (1986); Massachusetts Mutual
Life Insurance Co. v. Maitland, Civil No. 87-0827 (M.D.
Pa. March 1, 1989) (Rambo, J.).

Accordingly, a party

seeking reconsideration must demonstrate at least one of
the following grounds prior to the court altering, or
amending, a standing judgment: (1) an intervening change
in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new
evidence that was not available when the court granted
the motion; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of
law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Wiest v.
Lynch, 710 F.3d 121, 128 (3d Cir. 2013);

Max's Seafood

Café v. Quineros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.
1999)(citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance
Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)).

3

A motion for

reconsideration may not be used as a means to reargue
unsuccessful theories, or argue new facts or issues that
were not presented to the court in the context of the
matter previously decided.

Drysdale v. Woerth, 153 F.

Supp. 2d 678, 682 (E.D. Pa. 2001).

“Because federal

courts have a strong interest in the finality of
judgments, motions for reconsideration should be granted
sparingly.”

Continental Casualty Co. v. Diversified

Indus. Inc., 884 F.Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995).
Tellier’s motion for reconsideration fails to
demonstrate that there has been an intervening change in
the law, that there is newly discovered evidence, or
that there has been a clear error of law or manifest
injustice committed.

Thus, the court finds that its

memorandum and order of December 5,2016, is not
defective because of manifest errors of law or fact and
Tellier has not presented anything new, which if
previously presented, might have affected the court’s
decision. Furthermore, the memorandum and order of
December 5, 2016, is not subject to revision based on
mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect as

4

asserted by Tellier. Tellier fails to set forth any
valid basis for reconsideration of the dismissal of his
habeas petition.

Consequently, the motions for

reconsideration will be denied.
An appropriate order will be entered.

s/Sylvia H. Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge

Dated: February 16, 2017

5