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.

ADEGBUJI v. FIFTEEN IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT AGENTS

August 15, 2005.

TOSIN ADEGBUJI, Plaintiff,
v.
FIFTEEN IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT AGENTS, (in their individual and official capacities), Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN BISSELL, Chief Judge, District

OPINION

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of this Court's Order and Opinion entered on January 10, 2005.

  BACKGROUND

  On April 5, 2004, Plaintiff Tosin Adegbuji ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint ("the Complaint") in this Court against fifteen agents with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE").*fn1 Plaintiff brought this action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 409 F.2d 718 (2d Cir. 1969) asserting claims of excessive force, illegal search and seizure, denial of due process and equal protection, and false arrest and imprisonment. See Compl. at 4. On January 10, 2005, this Court dismissed the Complaint with prejudice, in its entirety, as against all defendants, for failure to state a claim. See Adegbuji v. Fifteen Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents, 04-1613(JWB) at 22 (Opinion) (January 10, 2005). In addition, this Court dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies Plaintiff's tort claims, which asserted loss of personal property and assault and battery by federal immigration agents under the FTCA. See id. at 23.

  FACTS

  This opinion will rely on the facts as presented in its January 10, 2005 Opinion. See id. at 2-6. Additional facts presented here will be appropriately cited. DISCUSSION

  I. Motion for Reconsideration Standard

  A motion for reconsideration is governed by Local Civil Rule 7.1(i). It requires that the moving party "set forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the [court] has overlooked." Pittston Co. v. Sedgwick James of New York, Inc., 971 F. Supp. 915, 918-919 (D.N.J. 1997). Thus, a party "must show more than a disagreement with the court's decision." Panna v. Firstrust Sav. Bank, 760 F. Supp. 432, 435 (D.N.J. 1991).

  A mere "recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden." Carteret Sav. Bank, F.A. v. Shushan, 721 F. Supp. 705, 709 (D.N.J. 1989). "Only where the court has overlooked matters that, if considered by the court, might reasonably have resulted in a different conclusion, will it entertain such a motion." Re: United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp. et al., 88 F. Supp. 2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999).

  II. Plaintiff's Arguments

  Plaintiff argues that the Court, "overlooked several matters of law and facts in dismissing the claims" and, "that an intervening change in the law or controlling precedent has just occurred which implicated the judgment of the district court relating to my conviction, the underlying violation of probation and the 1995 warrant of arrest issued . . . by the Southern District of New York." Pl.'s Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Recons. ("Pl.'s Br.") at 5. The Plaintiff's three main claims are: (1) that the Court overlooked the severity of his injuries; (2) habeas corpus claims; and (3) the Court should reexamine Plaintiff's case in regards to the change in law stemming from the recent Supreme Court decision United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). The Court will address each of Plaintiff's claims in turn.

  III. Analysis

  (A) Severity of Injury

  Plaintiff argues that this Court's analysis overlooked the severity of the injuries to his elbow, ankle and head while he was in custody. See Pl.'s Br. at 11. The injuries sustained, according to the Plaintiff, were not de minimis physical injuries, but were more severe. See id. Plaintiff further claims that the injuries were inflicted maliciously. See id. Plaintiff also asserts that subsequently a medical ...


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.