The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN JONES III, District Judge
On May 6, 2005, Emmanuel Larose ("Petitioner" or "Larose")
filed this pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while detained at the Plaquemines Parish
Detention Center, in Braithwaite, Louisiana.*fn1 Named as
Respondents were Secretary Alberto Gonzales of the Department of
Homeland Security and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Petitioner stated that he is a native of Haiti who is being
detained by the ICE pending his deportation. His Petition
challenged his pending removal on the grounds that he did not
commit an aggravated felony and his rights under the provisions
of the Convention Against Torture (CAT) have been violated. He also
sought an emergency stay of deportation.
By Memorandum and Order dated May 10, 2005, this Court granted
Petitioner temporary in forma pauperis status, a temporary
stay of deportation, and transferred his Petition to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Presently pending before the
Court are Petitioner's motions seeking reconsideration. See
Rec. Docs. 8 & 9.
A motion for reconsideration is a device of limited utility. It
may be used only to seek remediation of 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), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 (1986).
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), vacated in part on other grounds on reconsideration,
915 F. Supp. 712 (M.D. Pa. 1996) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v.
Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). "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).
Larose's reconsideration motions do not present any facts or
arguments which would undermine this Court's prior determination
that it lacked jurisdiction over the Warden of the Plaquemines
Parish Detention Center and that jurisdiction for Petitioner's
action rested solely with the district court having jurisdiction
over his custodian. It is additionally noted that this Court now
lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner's claims under Section 106 of
the REAL ID Act of 2005*fn2 which became effective on May
11, 2005. Since Larose's reconsideration motions fail to
establish the presence of any errors of law or fact and do not
set forth any newly discovered evidence or precedent, they will
be denied. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Petitioner's Motions for Reconsideration (docs. 8 & 9) are
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...