United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
H. RAMBO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
April 14, 2016, Kareem Hassan Milhouse, a prisoner confined
at the United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania
(“USP-Lewisburg”), filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No.
1.) In his petition, Milhouse challenged the disciplinary
proceedings for possession of a weapon and destroying
Government property (a mattress), which resulted in the loss
of 68 days of good time credit. (Id.) Milhouse
asserted that there was insufficient evidence to support the
August 8, 2016, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order
dismissing Milhouse's petition and closing the case.
(Doc. Nos. 7 and 8.) On September 15, 2016, Milhouse filed a
motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) and (b)(6). (Doc. Nos. 11 and 12.)
By Order dated November 7, 2016, the Court denied
Milhouse's motion for relief from judgment. (Doc. Nos. 13
and 14.) Milhouse appealed the Court's decision to the
Third Circuit which affirmed this Court. (Doc. Nos. 27, 28.)
On October 13, 2017, Milhouse filed another motion for relief
from judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
60(b)(2), (3), and (6). (Doc. Nos. 25 and 26.)
motion under Rule 60(b) “must be made within a
reasonable time - and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more
than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the
date of the proceeding.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c). Under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), “the court may relieve a
party...from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the
following reasons: … (2) newly discovered evidence...;
(3) fraud...misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing
party; … or (6) any other reason that justifies
extent that the motion can be construed under the Local Rules
as one for reconsideration, it is untimely filed. Local Rule
7.10 provides in pertinent part: “Any motion for
reconsideration or reargument must be accompanied by a
supporting brief and filed within fourteen (14) days after
the entry of the order concerned.” Here, the Court
entered an Order dated August 8, 2016, dismissing the habeas
petition and closing this case. (Doc. No. 8.) Milhouse's
instant motion was filed over a year later on October 13,
2017. (Doc. No. 25.) Consequently, the motion is untimely
Milhouse's motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 60(b)(2) and (3) is untimely filed as it was
required to be filed “no more than a year after the
entry of the judgment or order or the date of the
proceeding.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c). Again, the docket
reflects that Milhouse's current motion was filed well
after a year of the entry of the order dismissing this
action. However, time restrictions aside, a motion for
reconsideration is a device of limited utility. Its purpose
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 party seeking reconsideration must demonstrate
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 entered
judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or
fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Max's Seafood
Café 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 appropriate in instances where the court
has “patently misunderstood a party, or has made a
decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the
Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning
but of apprehension.” 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)). It may not be used as a means to reargue
unsuccessful theories, or argue new facts or issues that were
not presented to the court in the context of the matter
previously decided. Drysdale v. Woerth, 153
F.Supp.2d 678, 682 (E.D. Pa. 2001).
clear from Milhouse's instant motion that he again
attempts to reargue unsuccessful theories. As set forth in
this Court's November 7, 2016 Memorandum and Order
dismissing Milhouse's petition and closing the case (Doc.
Nos. 7 and 8), which the Court incorporates herein by
reference, Milhouse was accorded all of his due process
rights under Wolff and BOP regulations, and there
was some evidence supporting the decision of the DHO. (Doc.
No. 7 at 13; Doc. No. 28-1 at 3.) To the extent that Milhouse
believes that the exhibit attached to his current motion
constitutes “new evidence”; it does not. First,
as set forth above, his motion is untimely. Fed.R.Civ.P.
60(c). Moreover, “ ‘new evidence', for
reconsideration purposes, does not refer to evidence that a
party … submits to the court after an adverse ruling.
Rather, new evidence in this context means evidence that a
party could not earlier submit to the court because that
evidence was not previously available.” Blystone v.
Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 415-16 (3d Cir. 2011) (citations
omitted). “Evidence that is not newly discovered, as so
defined, cannot provide the basis for a successful motion for
reconsideration.” Id. There is no indication
that the exhibit Milhouse now attaches to his instant motion
was not previously available. Nevertheless, as provided by
the Third Circuit, even if this Court were to consider the
exhibit attached to Milhouse's motion, that document does
not undermine this Court's conclusion that some evidence
supports the Hearing Officer's decision.
the Court will deny Milhouse's motion for relief from