The opinion of the court was delivered by: NORMA SHAPIRO, Senior District Judge
On July 24, 2003, the court dismissed Melvin White's ("White")
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court concluded the petition
was time-barred because it was filed beyond the one-year statute of
limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). White filed a timely motion
for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration 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). A
court may grant a motion if the movant shows one of the following: (1) an
intervening change of controlling law; (2) new evidence that was
unavailable when the court issued its order; or (3) the need to correct a
clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Max's
Seafood Cafe v. Ouinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
"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).
A motion for consideration is not appropriate for rearguing issues a
court has already considered and decided.
White argues that the court should have considered his "actual
innocence" and used equitable tolling to consider his action timely. As
evidence that he was actually innocent of the crime of first degree
murder, White lists the names of seven witnesses who would have
testified, had they been called at trial, that he exhibited bizarre
behavior leading up to the time of the murder. White asks the court to
make a logical leap from this list of witnesses to his assertion that he
did not have the specific intent to commit the crime of first degree
murder. However, he offers no reliable evidence of his factual
innocence of the crime. The list of witnesses is far too little evidence
to conclude that White is actually innocent of the crime of first degree
murder. See Hull v. Freeman, 991 F.2d 86, 91 n.3 (3d Cir.
1993)(where petitioner has no colorable claim that he did not commit the
crime, miscarriage of justice exception cannot be satisfied).
White next asks the court to reconsider whether the state's time bar
ruling was adequate. This issue was fully discussed in the memorandum and
order denying White's petition; White offers nothing new to consider, and
the court declines to discuss this
Finally, White asks the court to reconsider issuing a certificate of
appealability. Here again, he raises no new issues, evidence or changes
in the law. The court will not reconsider its decision.
Because White cannot show that there has been an intervening change in
the law since the order denying his habeas petition, there is no
newly discovered evidence and he can point to no clear error of law or
fact, his motion for reconsideration will be DENIED.
AND NOW, this ___ day of March 2004, upon consideration of Petitioner's
Motion for Reconsideration (paper no. 32), for the reasons stated in the
attached memorandum, the motion is DENIED.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw ...