United States District Court, D. New Jersey
ALBERT J. FIELDS, JR., Plaintiff,
FRANCINE DICKERSON and ELIZABETH LOYLE, Defendants.
J. Fields, Jr. Bruce W. Padula Ashley Elizabeth Malandre
Cleary Giacobbe Alfieri Jacobs, LLC Attorneys for Defendant
Patrick Budic Florio Perrucci Steninhardt & Fader, LLC
Lester E. Taylor, III Florio Perrucci Steninhardt &
Fader, LLC Attorneys for Defendant Francine Dickerson.
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
Albert Fields, pro se, brings this § 1983
action asserting that Defendants Dickerson and Loyle deprived
him of his federal constitutional and statutory rights when
they allegedly failed to provide him with a grievance hearing
prior to evicting him from his public housing.
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration of the Court's opinion and order granting
summary judgment to the Defendants on the basis of collateral
estoppel. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration will be DENIED.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDRUAL HISTORY
opinion and order which are the subject of the instant motion
for reconsideration are available at Fields, Jr. v.
Dickerson, et al., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87206 (D.N.J.
July 6, 2016), and are incorporated herein by reference.
Court granted summary judgment to Defendants on the basis of
collateral estoppel because the undisputed record evidence
conclusively established that the issue of whether Defendants
were required to provide Plaintiff with a grievance hearing
was raised, litigated, and decided against Plaintiff within
the context of Plaintiff's eviction proceeding.
Specifically, the Court gave preclusive effect to the state
court's conclusion that Defendants were not required to
provide Plaintiff a grievance hearing, because, the state
court found, Plaintiff “‘had not
requested'” a grievance hearing. Fields,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87206 at *5 (quoting the state
court's written decision).
District, Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) governs motions for
reconsideration. Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) will apply where no
final judgment has been entered pursuant to Rule 54(b).
See Warner v. Twp. of S. Harrison, 885 F.Supp.2d
725, 747-48 (D.N.J. 2012). However, the standard for
evaluating the request is the same as the standard under Rule
scope of a motion for reconsideration . . . is extremely
limited.” Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 415
(3d Cir. 2011). “The purpose of a motion for
reconsideration is ‘to correct manifest errors of law
or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.'”
Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir.
2010)(citing Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc.
v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)). A
motion for reconsideration “must rely on one of three
grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2)
the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct
clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.”
Id. (citing N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA
Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)).
party seeking reconsideration must show more than a
disagreement with the Court's decision, and
recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the
court before rendering its original decision fails to carry
the moving party's burden.” Facteon, Inc. v.
Comp Care Partners, LLC, Civ. No. 13-6765, 2015 WL
519414, at *1 (D.N.J. Feb. 9, 2015)(quoting G-69 v.
Degnan, 748 F.Supp. 274, 275 (D.N.J. 1990)). “A
motion for reconsideration should not provide the parties
with an opportunity for a second bite at the apple.”
Tishcio v. Bontex, Inc., 16 F.Supp.2d 511, 533
(D.N.J. 1998) (citation omitted).
asserts that “[t]he Court erred in determining the
Plaintiff attempted to re-litigate the state court
action.” (Moving Brief, p. 6) According to Plaintiff,
he “availed himself of the state court remedies
regarding the landlord tenant action with the Housing
Authority and does not require this court ...