The opinion of the court was delivered by: SYLVIA RAMBO, Senior District Judge
Before the court is Petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
(Doc. 29.) For the reasons stated below, the court will deny
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
The facts are well known to both parties; therefore, the court
will not recite the facts. On November 8, 2005, the court denied
Petitioner's request for discovery and adopted the magistrate
judge's report and recommendation to deny Petitioner's motions
for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction
and Petitioner's petition for habeas corpus relief under
28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 28.) (Id.) Petitioner filed the instant
motion for reconsideration on November 15, 2005.
II. Legal Standard: Motion for Reconsideration
A motion for reconsideration is governed by Federal Rule 59(e),
which allows a party to move to alter or amend a judgment within
ten days of its entry. McDowell Oil Serv., Inc. v. Interstate
Fire & Cas. Co., 817 F. Supp. 538, 541 2 Pa. 1993). The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to
correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence. Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906,
909 (3d Cir. 1985). Accordingly, a judgment may be altered or
amended if the party seeking reconsideration shows at least one
of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was
not available when the court granted the motion for summary
judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact
or to prevent manifest injustice. Max's Seafood Cafe by Lou-Ann,
Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing
North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194,
1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). "`A motion for reconsideration is not to
be used as a means to reargue matters already argued and disposed
of or as an attempt to relitigate a point of disagreement between
the Court and the litigant.'" Ogden v. Keystone Residence,
226 F. Supp. 2d 588, 606 (M.D. Pa. 2002) (quoting Abu-Jamal v.
Horn, No. CIV. A. 99-5089, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20813, 2001 WL
1609761, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2001) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted)). Likewise, reconsideration motions may
not be used to raise new arguments or present evidence that could
have been raised prior to the entry of judgment. McDowell Oil
Serv. Inc., 817 F. Supp. at 541. Finally, reconsideration of
judgment is an extraordinary remedy, and such motions should be
granted sparingly. D'Angio v. Borough of Nescopeck,
56 F. Supp. 2d 502, 504 (M.D. Pa. 1999).
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration accuses the court of
acting in concert with Respondent; however, there is nothing that
supports Petitioner's allegations of misconduct by the court. Petitioner appears to
base his argument on the fact that the court has denied his
motion objecting to the magistrate judge's report and
recommendation. Such an argument is baseless and the court will
not address this issue any further. The court will deny
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration with respect to this
Petitioner also asserts that the court has evaded Petitioner's
claim that the loss of 27 days of good time credit was in
violation of the Bureau of Prisons' Program Statement. In
support, Petitioner cites to 18 U.S.C. § 3624. However, § 3624
specifically provides that
if the Bureau determines that, during that year, the
prisoner has not satisfactorily complied with such
institutional regulations, the prisoner shall receive
no such credit toward service of the prisoner's
sentence or shall receive such lesser credit as the
Bureau determines to be appropriate.
18 U.S.C. § 3624. Clearly it is within the discretion of the
Bureau of Prisons to determine whether an individual's conduct
merits credit for good time served. Thus, Petitioner's argument
is without merit. The court will deny Petitioner's motion for
reconsideration with respect to this issue as well.
The remainder of Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is
essentially a restatement of the arguments he has already
presented. Petitioner fails to articulate any new evidence that
would warrant a change in the court's ruling, and he does not
point to any new law that supports his position. As stated, a
motion for reconsideration is not a second opportunity for the
litigant to argue his position. Accordingly, the court will deny
Petitioner's motion. IV. Conclusion
In accordance with the foregoing discussion, the court will
deny Petitioner's motion for reconsideration. An appropriate
order will issue. ORDER
In accordance with the accompanying memorandum of law, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Doc.
29) is DENIED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...