The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN BISSELL, Chief Judge, District
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration of this Court's Order and Opinion entered on
January 10, 2005.
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.
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
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.
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 ...