United States District Court, D. New Jersey
ALLEN D. MORRIS, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
Allen D. Morris, Bridgeton, New Jersey, Plaintiff Pro Se.
Elizabeth Ann Pascal, AUSA, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Camden, New Jersey, Attorney for Defendants Dominick Ferrari, Douglas Herbert, Mark Rowe, Steve Brown, and Richard Henderson.
Robert P. Merenich, Esq., Gemmel, Todd & Merenich, P.A., Linwood, New Jersey, Attorney for Defendant City of Pleasantville.
NOEL L. HILLMAN, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is a motion [Doc. No. 134] filed by Plaintiff Pro se, Allen D. Morris, seeking reconsideration of the Opinion entered on December 29, 2014 granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants Dominick Ferrari, Douglas Herbert, Mark Rowe, Steve Brown, Richard Henderson, and the City of Pleasantville. The motion for reconsideration is opposed by Defendants Ferrari, Herbert, Rowe, Brown and Henderson, and Defendant City of Pleasantville has joined in the individual defendants' opposition. The Court has considered the submissions and decides this matter pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 78.
For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration will be denied.
Generally, this case arises from events that occurred on May 18, 2010, when Plaintiff was arrested at his home. The named individual defendants, Ferrari, Rowe, Brown, Herbert, and Henderson, were members of a joint task force who went to Plaintiff's residence to arrest Plaintiff's brother-in-law, Adam Bard (hereafter, "Bard"). After Bard was arrested, the officers then sought to effect the arrest of Plaintiff, but Plaintiff resisted. An altercation ensued, at which time Plaintiff suffered an injury to his eye socket. The individual defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claims against them.
In the December 29, 2014 Opinion and Order, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the individual defendants on grounds of qualified immunity. Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Order on both procedural and substantive grounds.
A. Standard for Motion for Reconsideration
A motion for reconsideration may be treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), or as a motion for relief from judgment or order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), or it may be filed pursuant to Local Civil Rule 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." Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). A judgment may be altered or amended only if the party seeking reconsideration shows: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Id.
A motion for reconsideration may not be used to re-litigate old matters or argue new matters that could have been raised before the original decision was reached. P. Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Cendant Corp., 161 F.Supp.2d 349, 352 (D.N.J. 2001). Mere disagreement with the Court will not suffice to show that the Court overlooked relevant facts or controlling law, United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F.Supp.2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999), and should be dealt with ...