United States District Court, D. New Jersey
JUAN R. SNCHEZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff Arthur D'Amario, III seeks reconsideration of this Court's October 8, 2013, Memorandum and Order granting summary judgment to Barry J. Weiner and Kathleen Hopkins on D'Amario's claims these Defendants violated his constitutional rights by preventing him from returning to Rhode Island to serve his supervised release there. D'Amario also seeks reconsideration of the Court's earlier dismissal of claims challenging conditions of his supervised release on the basis that those claims are not cognizable in a civil rights action. For the following reasons, the Court will deny D'Amario's motion.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
D'Amario's Amended Complaint named numerous Defendants, including Weiner and Hopkins, two Probation Officers in the District of Rhode Island, and raised several claims, many of which were brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). D'Amario alleged that judges and attorneys were conspiring against him, his federal convictions were the product of fraud, and the federal courts were essentially rigged against him. D'Amario, who was on supervised release when he filed this lawsuit after having been convicted in the District of New Jersey for threatening a federal judge, see United States v. D'Amario, Crim. A. No. 06-112 (D.N.J.), also challenged the constitutionality of certain aspects of his supervised release and alleged Weiner and Hopkins violated his constitutional rights by refusing to allow him to transfer his supervised release to the District of Rhode Island.
In a February 19, 2013, Memorandum and Order, the Court granted D'Amario leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed many of his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In particular, the Court dismissed D'Amario's claims challenging the conditions of his supervised release, concluding those claims were not cognizable in a civil rights action because D'Amario was required to raise them in a habeas proceeding, or establish that the challenged conditions had been invalidated prior to proceeding in a civil rights action for damages. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). The Court, however, allowed D'Amario to proceed on his Bivens claim that Weiner and Hopkins prevented him from transferring his supervised release from the District of New Jersey to the District of Rhode Island.
Weiner and Hopkins responded to the Amended Complaint by filing a motion for summary judgment arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity. D'Amario subsequently violated the terms of his supervised release, and his supervised release was revoked in the District of New Jersey. In an October 8, 2013, Memorandum and Order, the Court granted summary judgment to Weiner and Hopkins on the basis that nothing in the record established those Defendants had violated D'Amario's constitutional rights or acted unreasonably. Indeed, there was no evidence the Defendants "banished" D'Amario from Rhode Island, as he claimed, or otherwise interfered with his attempts to secure housing there.
D'Amario moves for reconsideration of the Court's Order granting summary judgment. He also challenges the Court's dismissal of his claims related to the conditions of his supervised release in light of new precedent from the Ninth Circuit.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A party seeking reconsideration must establish "(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available [at the time of the court's prior ruling]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). In other words, "a motion for reconsideration addresses only factual and legal matters that the Court may have overlooked." Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F.Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "It is improper on a motion for reconsideration to ask the Court to rethink what it had already thought through- rightly or wrongly." Id. (citation, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted).
A. Summary Judgment
In his motion for reconsideration, D'Amario contends the Court granted summary judgment based on an erroneous conclusion that "there is no evidence Defendants received any transfer requests from the BOP or the Probation Office in New Jersey." Mot. for Recons. 1 (quoting Oct. 8, 2013, Mem. 7-8). D'Amario maintains that, contrary to the Court's observation, an order in his criminal case and a transcript from his revocation hearing establish the Probation Office in Rhode Island had refused a transfer request.
D'Amario's argument is based on a selective quoting from the Court's Memorandum, which omits the Court's observation that Defendants had presented evidence (which D'Amario claimed was falsified) of "one pre-release request to the District of Rhode Island Probation Office that D'Amario reside with his aunt." Oct. 8, 2013, Mem. 7. The evidence presented in connection with D'Amario's motion is entirely consistent with Defendants' version of events. That the New Jersey officers who testified at D'Amario's revocation hearing did not recall the reason for the denial of the transfer request does not establish Defendants falsified evidence. In fact, Judge Diamond, in denying D'Amario's Motion to Correct Sentence in his criminal case, relied upon the same evidence submitted by Defendants in this case. See United States v. D'Amario, Crim. A. No. 06-112 (D.N.J.) (Document No. 410 at 2 (citing Document No. 407 at 2, Ex. B)). In any event, taking the entire record into consideration-including the documents attached to the motion for reconsideration-D'Amario simply has not ...