Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

KAMIENSKI v. HENDRICKS

July 5, 2005.

PAUL KAMIENSKI, Petitioner,
v.
ROY HENDRICKS, Administrator, New Jersey State Prison, Respondent.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: STANLEY CHESLER, Magistrate Judge

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] OPINION

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Paul Kamienski's motion for reconsideration [docket #36] of the Order and Order and Opinion in this matter signed by the Court on May 10, 2005.

BACKGROUND:

  The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are well-known to the parties and will not be repeated here except as pertinent to the instant motion for reconsideration.

  Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on June 26, 2002. On October 15, 2003, Petitioner filed an amended and supplemental petition.

  In an Opinion and Order dated May 10, 2005 this Court ordered that (1) Petitioner's amendments of Grounds One Two, Three, and Four will be treated as if they were filed at the time of the original petition; (2) Petitioner's Ground Five for Brady-Giglio Violation Re FBI Lab Documents and his Ground Six for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel are both dismissed as they are time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); (3) the filing date of Petitioner's Amendment and Supplement to his petition remains October 15, 2003; and (4) the Court will not entertain any requests for discovery until after Respondent has answered the petition.

  Petitioner contends that the Court, in reaching these conclusions, made certain erroneous findings and overlooked several factual matters and legal arguments. Specifically, Petitioner appears to be challenging the Court's dismissal of Ground Five for Brady-Giglio Violation Re FBI Lab Documents.

  DISCUSSION:
I. Standard of Review:
  Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule 7.1(i).*fn1 That Rule provides, in part, that "[a] motion for reconsideration shall be served and filed within 10 business days after the entry of the order or judgment on the original motion by the Judge or Magistrate Judge." D.N.J.L. Civ. R. 7.1(i). The "purpose of a motion for reconsideration 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).

  Reargument is not a means by which to obtain a proverbial second bite of the apple. See Chiniewicz v. Henderson, 202 F. Supp. 2d 332, 334 (D.N.J. 2002) (noting that a motion for reconsideration "is not an opportunity . . . to introduce legal theories that a party failed to include in its initial motion"). Indeed, Rule 7.1(i) permits a reconsideration only when "dispositive factual matters or controlling decisions of law" were presented to the Court but were overlooked. See Resorts Int'l v. Great Bay Hotel and Casino, 830 F. Supp. 826, 831 (D.N.J. 1992); Khair v. Campbell Soup Co., 893 F. Supp. 316, 337 (D.N.J. 1995). Accordingly, the Court has reconsidered its previous rulings only where convinced that germane information was initially overlooked.

  Relief pursuant to Rule 7.1(i) is "an extraordinary remedy" that is to be granted "very sparingly." NL Indus. Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 935 F. Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J. 1996); Maldonado v. Lucca, 636 F. Supp. 621, 630 (D.N.J. 1986). Indeed, "mere disagreement with a court's decision normally should be raised through the appellate process and is inappropriate on a motion for reargument." Yurecko v. Port Auth. Trans. Hudson Corp., 279 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609 (D.N.J. 2003) (quotation and citation omitted).

  Accordingly, a motion under Rule 7.1(i) may be granted only if: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law has occurred; (2) evidence not previously available has become available; or (3) it is necessary to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir 1995).

  II. Factual Findings:

  Petitioner points out several factual statements made in the Court's opinion that he claims were mistaken. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the Court: (1) incorrectly stated that the FBI performed tests on hairs taken from Kamienski along with fibers and hairs from Kamienski's boat (Pet. Br. for Recons. at 7); (2) mistakenly stated that the Podolak notes concluded that no transfer of textile fibers between the rug on Kamienski's boat and the blankets wrapped around the victims was detected, when the rug was actually from Alongi's boat (Id.); (3) understated the significance of the Podolak notes as set forth in Presley's declaration by failing to mention Presley's conclusion that the two blankets had been in contact with the victims prior to the homicides and that the two blankets had been stored in the victims' own car rather than Kamienski's boat (Id. at 8); and (4) did not discuss or give appropriate weight to the many other aspects of the Podolak notes that Presley deemed significant (Id. at 8-9).

  The Court now recognizes that some of Petitioner's factual clarifications are indeed correct. The Court's opinion did indeed incorrectly state that Petitioner's Brady claim relied on the FBI tests performed on "hairs taken from the two victims, hairs taken from Kamienski, and tests on blankets wrapped around the victims, as well as two blankets from Kamienski's boat, along with various fibers and hairs from Kamienski's boat and the victims' car." (Opinion at 12 (emphasis added)). The Opinion also incorrectly stated that the Podolak notes concluded that "no transfer of textile fibers between the rug on Kamienski's boat and the blanket wrapped around one of the victims was detected." (Id. at 13 (emphasis added)). Upon further ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.