United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
October 12, 2005.
JOSEPH WATKINS, Petitioner,
RONNIE R. HOLT, Respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: YVETTE KANE, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On December 27, 2004, Joseph Watkins ("Watkins"), a federal
inmate confined at the Federal Correctional Institution at
Schuylkill, Minersville, Pennsylvania, filed a petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the
denial of his good conduct time by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP).
On June 30, 2005, the petition was dismissed based upon Watkins'
failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. 14). Since
the dismissal, Watkins has filed the following motions: two
motions for reconsideration (Docs. 16, 18), motion for immediate
release (Doc. 17) and motion for a certificate of appealability
(Doc. 30). For the reasons set forth below, the motions will be
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
Essentially, Watkins is dissatisfied with the Court's decision
and, in an effort to have his matter heard again, represents that
he has now exhausted his administrative remedies. In doing so, he
submits a multitude of administrative remedy documents.
Respondent accurately describes Watkins' submissions as follows:
"Watkins' own exhibits demonstrate that these recent filings were
separate administrative remedies from the ones at issue in this
case, were filed after Watkins filed the instant petition, and
were rejected as improperly filed, with notations that the issues
he raised were addressed in previous administrative remedies."
(Doc. 23, p. 5). Watkins 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 motions for
reconsideration will be denied. Further, the motion for release
will be denied based upon the determination that Watkins is not
entitled to habeas relief.
With respect to the motion for a certificate of appealability,
"[f]ederal prisoner appeals from § 2241 proceedings, however, are
not governed by [28 U.S.C. §] 2253's certificate of appealability
requirement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (applying the
certificate of appealability requirement to federal prisoner
appeals from "the final order in a proceeding under section
2255"); see also Sugarman v. Pitzer, 170 F.3d 1145, 1146
(D.C. Cir. 1999) ("We hold that a COA is not required for federal
prisoner § 2241 appeals."); Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 681 (5th
Cir. 1997)." U.S. v. Cepero, 224 F.3d 256, 264-265 (3d Cir,
2000). His request for a certificate of appealability will
therefore be denied. II. Order.
AND NOW, this 12th day of October 2005, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT the motions for reconsideration(Docs. 16, 18),
motion for release (Doc. 17), and motion for a certificate of
appealability(Doc. 30) are DENIED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.