The opinion of the court was delivered by: Norma L. Shapiro, S.J.
This is a motion for reconsideration of a habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by pro se petitioner John A. Hart ("Hart"). For the reasons that follow, the motion for reconsideration will be granted but Hart's habeas petition will again be denied.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner, Hart, was convicted in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on May 12, 2003 and sentenced to twelve months imprisonment. Petitioner was immediately paroled; he did not take a direct appeal. On February 9, 2004, Hart was found to have violated the terms of his parole. On November 16, 2007, Hart filed for federal habeas relief from his May 12, 2003 conviction.
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Wells for a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). Judge Wells recommended that Hart's petition be dismissed because he did not satisfy the "in custody" requirement for habeas and therefore this court lacked jurisdiction over his claims. Hart made the following objections to Judge Wells's R&R.
1. Judge Wells erred in failing to recognize the collateral consequences exception to the custody requirement and the exception grants this Court jurisdiction over Hart's claim.
2. Judge Wells erred in failing to address the merits of Hart's habeas claim.
On October 17, 2008, this court construed Hart's petition as challenging his parole revocation and therefore held that this court lacked jurisdiction over his claim because he was no longer in custody and the collateral consequences exception does not extend to parole revocation. Hart's habeas petition was denied. On November 6, 2008, Hart, filing a motion for reconsideration, noted that his habeas petition challenged his conviction, not his parole revocation. Hart is not currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation or parole.
Presently before the court is Hart's motion for reconsideration of his objections to Judge Wells's R&R.
Hart's Motion for Reconsideration
A motion for reconsideration serves to correct manifest errors of law or fact. Youssef v. Anvil Intern, No. 06-4926, 2008 WL 618654 at *1 (E.D.Pa. Mar 3, 2008), citing Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906(3d Cir.1985). A court should grant a motion for reconsideration only if the moving party establishes one of three grounds: (1) there is newly available evidence; (2) an intervening change in the controlling law; or (3) there is a need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Youssef, 2008 WL 618654 at *1, citing Drake v. Steamfitters, No. 97-585, 1998 WL 564486 at *3 (E.D.Pa. Sept.3, 1998). Hart's motion attempts to correct an error of fact regarding the nature of his habeas petition. Hart points to this court's determination that his habeas petition challenged a parole revocation, when in fact it challenged his conviction. The motion for reconsideration will be granted because there was a mistake of fact.
Hart's Objections to the R&R
A district court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge's R&R to which objection is made. 28 ...