United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Roderick Black Petitioner Pro se
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner Roderick
Black's (“Petitioner”) Motion for
Reconsideration of this Court's Opinion and Order
dismissing his Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No.
6.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny
is a federal inmate confined at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Fairton, New Jersey. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) In his
Petition, Petitioner asserted that he was actually innocent
of the life sentence imposed under 21 U.S.C. § 841 and
that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to challenge
his conviction or sentence because he was sentenced prior to
the Supreme Court's decision in Burrage v. United
States, 134 S.Ct. 881, 187 L.Ed.2d 715 (2014). (Pet. 2,
5, ECF No. 1).
Opinion and Order entered on June 7, 2016, this Court
dismissed the Petition for lack of jurisdiction, finding that
“the Supreme Court's decision in Burrage did not
decriminalize the conduct for which Petitioner was
convicted.” Black v. Kirby, No. 16-1553, 2016
WL 3219864, at *4 (D.N.J. June 7, 2016). The Court further
noted that, in a recent decision, the Third Circuit confirmed
that a challenge to a conviction based on Burrage did not
fall into the limited exception where § 2255 is
inadequate or ineffective. Id. (citing Dixon v.
Warden of FCI Schuylkill, No. 15-4089, 2016 WL 1568147,
at *2 (3d Cir. Apr. 19, 2016)).
instant Motion, Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the
dismissal of his Petition on two grounds:
1) Whether the rule announced in Burrage is an intervening
change in law, base an a substantive statutory interpretation
of an existing statute 84 (1) (a) an if he entitlted to the
benefit from the interpretation to filed 2241 challenge
actually innocence of drug conviction.
2) Whether the rule announced in Burrage that narrow the
scope of the statute (drug element) of 841 (a) (1) if he
being convicted without the element of crime charge and if
so, is conduct deem non-criminal this Court had the
jurisdiction to adhere Supreme Court case law and vacate
Black conviction of drug crime base on the intervening change
in law. When Burrage interpreted a substantive criminal
statute 841 (a)(1).
(Mot. 9, ECF No. 6.) (spelling and grammatical errors
contained in original).
motion for reconsideration may be treated as a motion to
alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e), or as a motion for relief from judgment or order under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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; 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), and 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).
matter, there has been no intervening change in the
controlling law since the time the Court entered its Opinion
and Order and there is no new evidence that was not available
when the Court dismissed the Petition. To the extent
Petitioner is arguing that there is a need to correct a clear
error of law, the Court notes that it relied on a Third
Circuit Court of Appeals case in finding that the Supreme
Court's decision in Burrage does not fall within the
parameters of the Dorsainvilexception, which allows a prisoner
to bring such a claim in a petition under 28 U.S.C. §
2241. Black v. Kirby, ...