United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
September 12, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief District Judge.
AND NOW, this 12th day of September, 2014, upon consideration of the motion (Doc. 942) for reconsideration filed by defendant Eddie Rodriguez-Melendez ("Rodriguez-Melendez"), wherein Rodriguez-Melendez seeks reconsideration of the court's memorandum (Doc. 922) and order (Doc. 923) dated August 14, 2014, denying Rodriguez-Melendez's motion (Doc. 846) to dismiss the indictment, request (Doc. 904) for grand jury transcripts, and request (Doc. 906) for an evidentiary hearing in connection with the allegations presented in his motion to dismiss, and the court emphasizing that the purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to present newly discovered evidence or to correct manifest errors of law or fact, see Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros , 176 F.3d 669, 677-78 (3d Cir. 1999); Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki , 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), and noting that the court possesses an inherent power to reconsider its orders "when it is consonant with justice to do so, " Alea N. Am. Ins. Co. v. Salem Masonry Co. , 301 F.Appx. 119, 121 (3d Cir. 2008); United States v. Jerry , 487 F.2d 600, 605 (3d Cir. 1973), but that such relief is to be granted "sparingly, " Montanez v. York City, No. 12-CV-1530, 2014 WL 3534567, at *7 (M.D. Pa. July 16, 2014) (quoting Continental Casualty Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc. , 884 F.Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995)), and that a party may not invoke a motion for reconsideration as a means to relitigate matters of disagreement with the court, see Boretsky v. Governor of N.J. , 433 F.Appx. 73, 78 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc. , 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009)), nor is a motion for reconsideration "an opportunity for a party to present previously available evidence or new arguments, " Federico v. Charterers Mut. Assurance Ass'n Ltd. , 158 F.Supp.2d 565, 578 (E.D. Pa. 2001); see also Harsco Corp. , 779 F.2d at 909, and it appearing that Rodriguez-Melendez bases his motion on arguments identical to or expanding upon those raised in his initial motion (Doc. 846) to dismiss the indictment and his brief (Doc. 919) in reply to the government's brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss the indictment,  and neither identifies nor substantiates a clear error of law in the court's prior decision, and accordingly fails to satisfy the exacting standard of review applied to motions for reconsideration, it is hereby ORDERED that Rodriguez-Melendez's motion (Doc. 942) for reconsideration of the court's memorandum (Doc. 922) and order (Doc. 923) dated August 14, 2014 is DENIED.