Matthews v. Cameron et al

Filing 43

ORDER denying motion for reconsideration 42 . (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 11/29/18. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THOMAS HARVEY MATTHEWS,
Petitioner
v.
WARDEN CAMERON,
Respondent

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 3:12-CV-1759
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of November, 2018, upon consideration of
Matthews’ informal request (Doc. 42) for reconsideration, 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 that the 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 decision and
reargues matters already disposed of by the court, 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 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 the motion (Doc. 42) is
DENIED. 1

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania

This matter was initially assigned to the Honorable Richard P. Conaboy of
this Court. Since Judge Conaboy recently passed away, this matter was reassigned
to the undersigned.
Petitioner’s pending request for reconsideration vaguely argues that his
supplemental claim which was filed in January, 2017 should be deemed timely
because it relies on a 2014 decision of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania,
Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 106 A.3d 800 (Pa. Super 2014) a This Court does not agree
that Wolfe constitutes newly discovered evidence. Moreover, Petitioner has failed
to establish the presence of any manifest errors of law or fact with respect to the
decision by Judge Conaboy to deny the petition as being untimely and Matthews
has not presented any evidence, which if previously presented, might have affected
the decision.
1