United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
November 16, 2005.
BUCKLEY OTTO, Petitioner,
WARDEN, FCI-ALLENWOOD, Respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES McCLURE JR., District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Buckley Otto ("Petitioner"), an inmate presently confined at
the Allenwood Federal Correctional Institution, White Deer,
Pennsylvania ("FCI-Allenwood"), filed this pro se petition
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Named as
Respondent is the Warden at FCI-Allenwood.
Otto's petition claims entitlement to federal habeas corpus
relief on the grounds that his sentence has been improperly
calculated. Petitioner indicates that he is entitled to
additional good time credit ("GTC"), specifically 54 days per
year. His petition also maintains that a period of 82 months
spent in state custody should be credited towards service of his federal sentence because the
imposition of a federal detainer prevented him from making bail
on his state charges.
By Memorandum and Order July 27, 2005, this Court concluded
that Otto failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that his
statutory good time had been miscalculated or that he was
entitled to additional credit against his federal sentence for
time served in the State of Connecticut. Presently pending is
Petitioner's motion to alter or amend judgment. See Record
document no. 21.
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).
Otto's reconsideration motion does not present any facts or
arguments which would undermine this Court's prior determination
that his federal sentence has been properly calculated and that
time spent in state custody should not be credited towards
service of his federal sentence.
Since Petitioner's reconsideration motion has failed to
establish the presence of any errors of law or fact and does not
set forth any newly discovered evidence or precedent, it will be
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. Petitioner's motion to alter or amend judgment
(Record document no. 21) is DENIED.
2. The Petitioner's motion to expedite (Record
document no. 24) is DENIED as moot.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.