Abbadessa v. Perdue et al

Filing 13

ORDER DENYING MOTION 12 TO RECONSIDER re 9 Order on Report and Recommendations, filed by Peter Abbadessa. Signed by Chief Judge Gina M. Groh on 4/14/2015. Copy sent certified mail, return receipt to pro se Petitioner.(tlg) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/14/2015: # 1 certified mail receipt) (tlg).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG
PETER ABBADESSA,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:14-CV-88
(GROH)

RUSSELL PERDUE, Warden, Federal
Correctional Institution FCI-Gilmer and
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of a letter filed by the pro se
Petitioner on April 9, 2015. ECF 12. The Court construes this letter as a motion to
reconsider its March 30, 2015 Order dismissing the Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition
for habeas corpus with prejudice because the letter asks the Court to review this case
again “or point [him] to other avenues [he] can take to” regain the good conduct time at
issue in his petition.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) authorizes a district court to alter, amend or
vacate a prior judgment. A court may amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) in only three
circumstances: (1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account
for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of the law or prevent
manifest injustice. Gagliano v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 547 F. 3d 230, 241 n.8 (4th
Cir. 2008). A Rule 59(e) motion “may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise
arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to entry of judgment.”

Pac Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (quoting 11 Wright
et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, at 127-28 (2d ed. 1995)). “In general,
reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be
used sparingly.” Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Here, the Court dismissed the petition as successive because the Petitioner had filed
a § 2241 petition in the Southern District of Georgia, Abbadessa v. Haynes, Civil Action No.
CV211-84, 2011 WL 6004295 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 30, 2011), that raised the same claims as the
pending petition and that court denied the petition after considering its merits. The
Petitioner does not argue that the applicable law has changed, that new evidence has
come to light, that the Court committed a legal error, or that amendment is needed to
prevent manifest injustice. Instead, he simply asks the Court to review this case again. As
noted, relitigation of old matters is not a basis for granting relief from a judgment. See Pac
Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at 403. Finally, to the extent that the Petitioner asks the Court to direct
him to other possible avenues for relief, the Court cannot so advise the Petitioner.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record and the
pro se Petitioner.
DATED: April 14, 2015

2