The opinion of the court was delivered by: Thompson, U.S.D.J.
This matter has come before the Court upon Plaintiff OR's Motion for Reconsideration and for Rule 60 Corrections [docket #71]. Defendants Gerri Hutner, Lisa Catalano, Rick Cave, Arthur Downs, Donna Gibbs-Nini, Eric Harrison, Victoria Kniewel, Dennis Lepold, Methfessel & Werbel, Kathy Mitchel, Charles Rudnick, Larry Shanok, Thomas A. Smith Robby Varghese, West Windsor Plainsboro School District, and Michael Zapicchi oppose the motion . The Court has decided the motion after taking into consideration the parties' submissions without oral argument, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
The Court presumes that all parties are familiar with the factual and procedural background of this matter. The events underlying this matter began in March 2004, when Plaintiff, then a minor student, was found in possession of a knife at school. Although Plaintiff's initial legal actions alleged that the West Windsor Plainsboro School District (the "School District") treated him in a discriminatory manner in disciplining him for the knife possession, the current lawsuit focuses on the allegation that Defendants' conduct in subsequent litigation violated Plaintiff's constitutional right to access the courts.
On March 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Complaint  in this Court. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss  under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which this Court granted on June 23, 2010 . On September 17, 2010, we denied Reconsideration on the previous Motion to Dismiss and also granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by four defendants that were added after our June 23rd order . However, we allowed the matter to remain open to provide the Plaintiff with the opportunity to amend the Complaint to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On September 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed a renewed Motion to Amend , naming additional defendants. We denied the Motion to Amend with prejudice on November 4, 2010 .
Prior to the proceedings relating to the Motion to Amend, Defendants had filed a Motion for Sanctions requesting attorneys' fees to be paid by Plaintiff's counsel . We held a hearing on the Motion for Sanctions on September 28, 2010 . After having established in our November 4th Order that any amendment to the Complaint would be futile, and in light of the parties' briefs and oral argument regarding the frivolousness of this lawsuit, we ultimately granted Defendants' Motion for Sanctions on November 5, 2010 , awarding Defense counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of $4,500.00.
Plaintiff's counsel now requests reconsideration of our denial of the Motion to Amend and our grant of the Motion for Sanctions.
A.Legal Standard for Motion for Reconsideration
A motion for reconsideration, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and L. Civ. R. 7.1, may be brought on three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) evidence not previously available, or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reins. Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995). Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy that is to be granted "very sparingly." Interfaith Cmty. Org. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 215 F. Supp. 2d 482, 507 (D.N.J. 2002). A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle for raising new matters or arguments that could have been raised before the original decision was made, Bowers v. NCAA, 130 F. Supp. 2d 610, 613 (D.N.J. 2001), nor is it an opportunity to ask a court to rethink what it has already thought through. Oritani S & L v. Fidelity & Deposit, 744 F. Supp. 1311, 1314 (D.N.J. 1990). Reconsideration based on a clear error of law may be granted only if there is a dispositive factual or legal matter that was presented but not considered which would have reasonably resulted in a different conclusion by the court. Champion Labs., Inc. v. Metex Corp., 677 F. Supp. 2d 748, 750 (D.N.J. 2010).
1.Denial of Plaintiff's Motion ...