United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
October 12, 2005.
REGINALD L. CLEMONS, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: YVETTE KANE, District Judge
On June 1, 2005, Reginald L. Clemons ("Clemons"), a federal
inmate confined at the Federal Correctional Institution at
Allenwood, White Deer, Pennsylvania, filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On June 30, 2005, the
petition was dismissed as Clemons failed to establish the
inadequacy or ineffectiveness of the § 2255 remedy such that he
would be able to proceed via § 2241. Presently pending is
Clemons' motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 7). For the reasons
set forth below, the motion will be denied.
A motion under Rule 59(e) "must rely on one of three major
grounds: `(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.'" North River Ins. Co. v. Cigna Reinsurance Co.,
52 F.2d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); See also,
Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906 (3d Cir. 1985). It is
not a tool to re-litigate and reargue issues which have already
been considered and disposed of by the court. Dodge v.
Susquehanna Univ., 796 F. Supp. 829, 830 (M.D.Pa. 1992). "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.'" Database
America, Inc. V. Bellsouth Advertising and Publishing Corp.,
825 F. Supp. 1216, 1220 (D.N.J. 1993). Essentially, Clemons is dissatisfied with the Court's decision.
He has not met his burden in that he has failed to demonstrate
that there has been an intervening change in the law, that there
is newly discovered evidence or that there has been a clear error
of law or manifest injustice committed. Consequently, the Court
declines to alter the Memorandum and Order entered on June 30,
2005, and the motion for reconsideration will be denied.
AND NOW, this 12th day of October 2005, it is hereby
ORDERED that Clemons' motion for reconsideration (Doc. 7) is
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.