Solomon v. United States of America
Filing
26
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry). Signed by Honorable Edwin M. Kosik on 7/18/2016. (emksec, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
____________________________________
:
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
:
:
Respondent.
:
____________________________________:
JELANI SOLOMON,
Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-1323
(Judge Kosik)
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner, Jelani Solomon (“Solomon”), an inmate currently confined at the United
States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, filed pro se, a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). Solomon contends that the payments required
by the Bureau of Prisons’ Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (“IFRP”) conflict with the
sentencing court’s order regarding restitution payments. (Id.) This Court filed a
Memorandum and Order (Docs. 15 and 16), adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 12), denying Solomon’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Solomon then filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 17).
DISCUSSION
A motion for reconsideration is a device of limited utility. Its purpose is to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. Harsco Corp. v.
Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). 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 entered judgment; or (3) the
need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Max’s Seafood
Café v. Quinteros, 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)). A motion for reconsideration is
appropriate in instances where the court has “patently misunderstood a party, or has made a
decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an
error not of reasoning but of apprehension.” Rohrbach v. AT&T Nassau Metals Corp., 902 F.
Supp. 523, 527 (M.D. Pa. 1995), vacated in part on other grounds on reconsideration, 915 F.
Supp. 712 (M.D. Pa. 1996) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99
F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). It 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 Cas. Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc.,
884 F. Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995).
Plaintiff, in the instant matter, simply attempts to reargue an unsuccessful theory
already disposed of by this Court. Plaintiff’s instant motion for reconsideration does not set
forth any intervening change in the controlling law, produce any evidence which was not
previously in existence and available to him, or prove that reconsideration is necessary to
correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Plaintiff’s attempt to reargue
unsuccessful claims simply cannot provide the basis for a successful motion for
reconsideration. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be denied.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 17). An appropriate order follows.
2
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?