United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
MEMORANDUM
Kane,
Judge.
Before
the Court is a letter from Petitioner, docketed by the Court
on May 7, 2018 (Doc. No. 39), that the Court construes as a
motion for reconsideration of this Court's December 19,
2017 Memorandum and Order dismissing the petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. Nos.
39). For the reasons provided herein, the Court will deny
Petitioner's motion.
I.
BACKGROUND
On
December 8, 2015, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging
the decision of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and
Parole (“Board”), to deny him reparole. (Doc. No.
9.) Respondents filed an answer to the petition on May 18,
2016, maintaining that the denial of Petitioner's
petition was appropriate. (Doc. No. 21.) Petitioner
subsequently filed a motion for leave to amend his prayer for
relief (Doc. No. 27), motion to revise his petition (Doc. No.
32), and motion to remain at the Federal Detention Center in
Philadelphia pending the resolution of his habeas petition.
(Doc. No. 33.) After an Order was issued upon Respondents
directing them to respond to Petitioner's subsequent
filings (Doc. No. 34), Respondents filed an answer on October
4, 2017. (Doc. No. 35.) During the pendency of this action,
the Board issued a decision on June 19, 2017, granting
Petitioner's reparole to his Federal detainer sentence,
and Petitioner was released on reparole to his Federal
detainer sentence on August 10, 2017. (Doc. No. 35 at 2.)
On
December 19, 2017, this Court issued a Memorandum and Order
dismissing the habeas petition as moot because Petitioner was
released on reparole and therefore, his petition no longer
presented a live case or controversy; denied Petitioner's
motion for leave to amend his prayer for relief as untimely
pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(“AEDPA”); and denied Petitioner's request to
remain at the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia
because the Court concluded that such a determination of
placement in an appropriate housing facility rests with
prison administrators. (Doc. Nos. 37, 38.) This matter was
closed on December 18, 2017. On May 7, 2018, Petitioner filed
a letter with the Court, which is construed as a motion to
reconsider the December 19, 2017 Memorandum and Order. (Doc.
No. 39.)
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
A
motion for reconsideration is a device of limited utility,
which may “not 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) (citations omitted);
see also Baker v. Astrue, Civ. No. 07-4560, 2008 WL
4922015, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 17, 2008). Rather, a court may
alter or amend its judgment only upon a showing from the
movant of one of the following: “(1) an intervening
change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new
evidence . . . or (3) the need to correct a clear error of
law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.”
Max's Seafood Cafe 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 when a court has
“patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision
outside the adversarial issues presented to the [c]ourt 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) (quoting
Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc.,
99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)), vacated in part on
other grounds on reconsideration, 915 F.Supp. 712 (M.D.
Pa. 1996). 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). “Because federal
courts have a strong interest in the finality of judgments,
motions for reconsideration should be granted
sparingly.” Continental Cas. Co. v. Diversified
Indus., Inc., 884 F.Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995).
III.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner's
motion for reconsideration fails to meet the narrowly-defined
factors governing motions for reconsideration, as it does not
identify an intervening change in controlling law, provide
any evidence that was not previously available to this Court,
or show the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or
prevent manifest injustice. Rather, the motion appears to
seek clarification of verbiage in a Court memorandum in a
separate case docketed at 1:15-cv-2358, to clarify that
Petitioner cooperated with federal authorities “against
himself” and not against anyone else. (Doc. No. 39.)
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Petitioner's
motion for reconsideration of the Court's December 19,
2017 Memorandum and Order will be denied; however, the Court
takes notice of Petitioner's clarification that he had
cooperated with federal authorities against himself and not
against anyone else.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the
reasons set forth above, Petitioner's motion for
reconsideration (Doc. No. 39), will be ...