IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
January 9, 2008
JUNIOR COX, PETITIONER
DONALD MONICA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 9th day of January, 2008, upon consideration of respondents' motion for reconsideration pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 59 (e) (Doc. 12), in which respondents seek reconsideration of the court's memorandum and order granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus and remanding the matter to the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Doc. 11), and it appearing that respondents fail to set forth any of the grounds that would warrant reconsideration, North River Ins. Co. v. Cigna Reinsurance Co., 52 F.2d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted) ("A proper motion to alter or amend judgment 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.'"), and that they merely disagree with the court's conclusion that petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention and is entitled to an individualized bond hearing, and attempt to reargue the issue, see Waye v. First Citizen's Nat'l Bank, 846 F. Supp. 310, 314 (M.D. Pa. 1994) ("A motion for reconsideration is not to be used to reargue matters already argued and disposed of."), aff'd, 31 F.3d 1174 (3d Cir. 1994); see also Database America, Inc. v. Bellsouth Adver. & Publ'g Corp., 825 F. Supp. 1216, 1220 (D. N.J. 1993) (citations omitted) ("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.'"), it is hereby ORDERED that respondents' motion for reconsideration (Doc. 12) is DENIED.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.