United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
September 6, 2005.
GREGORY TAYLOR, Petitioner,
JOSEPH SMITH, Respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: A. RICHARD CAPUTO, District Judge
Petitioner, Gregory Taylor, a federal prisoner confined at the
United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg ("USP-Lewisburg"),
Pennsylvania, commenced this pro se action with a petition for
writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) filed pursuant to the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Named as Respondent is USP-Lewisburg Warden
Joseph V. Smith. Subsequently, Petitioner filed an amended
petition (Doc. 4) on June 16, 2005, requesting the Court to
construe his petition as filed pursuant to the provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is challenging the validity of his
conviction and sentence imposed by the District of Columbia
Superior Court in 1989. By Memorandum and Order dated July 29,
2005 (Doc. 12), the habeas petition was denied. Pending before
the Court is Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 15) of
the Order denying habeas relief. For the reasons that follow,
Petitioner's motion will be denied.
A motion for reconsideration is a device of limited utility,
and it permits the district court to reconsider its prior
judgment. Hairston v. Alert Safety Light Products, 307 F.3d 717
(8th Cir. 2002). It may be used only to correct manifest errors
of law or fact, or to present newly discovered precedent or
evidence which, if discovered previously, might have affected the court's decision. Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki,
779 F.2d 906 (3d Cir. 1985). It has also been held that a motion for
reconsideration is appropriate in instances such as where the
court has ". . . misunderstood a party, or has made a decision
outside the adversarial issues presented to the court by parties,
or has made an error not of reasoning, but of apprehension." See
Rohrbach v. AT & T Nassau Metals Corp., 902 F. Supp. 523, 527
(M.D. Pa. 1995). "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).
In his pending motion, Petitioner simply reiterates his prior
arguments for relief set forth in the habeas petition, and
Petitioner does not set forth new evidence, a change of law, or a
manifest error of law to justify reconsideration. Accordingly,
this Court finds that Petitioner has not satisfied the
requirements for a successful motion for reconsideration, and,
therefore, Petitioner's motion (Doc. 15) will be denied. An
appropriate Order follows.
AND NOW, THIS 6th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2005, in accordance
with the foregoing memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 15) is DENIED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.