United States District Court, D. New Jersey
[D.E. 29, Plaintiff's Informal Motion for
LETTER ORDER - OPINION
HONORABLE STEVE MANNION U.S.M.J.
the Court is Plaintiff Ilirjan Bida's (“Mr.
Bida”) appeal of this Court's Order dated December
20, 2016, granting Defendant Sharon Johnson's (“Ms.
Johnson”) Motion for Summary Judgment. Mr. Bida filed a
brief appealing this Court's grant of summary judgement
on January 24, 2017. The application will be treated as a
motion for reconsideration. Upon consideration of the papers
submitted in support and those in opposition,  Mr. Bida's
motion for reconsideration is denied for the
reasons set forth herein.
for reconsideration must be filed within fourteen (14) days
“after the entry of the order or judgment on the
original motion by the Judge or Magistrate
Judge.” The Order was filed on December 20, 2016,
but reconsideration was not filed until 35 days later on
January 24, 2017. While such motions must be filed within 14
days after the entry of the order or judgment,  “in
deference to [a party's] pro se status . . . the
Court may relax this strict deadline to prevent surprise or
“is not appropriate where the motion only raises a
party's disagreement with the Court's initial
decision.” To prevail on a motion for
reconsideration, the moving party must show at least one of
the following grounds: “(1) an intervening change in
the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence
that was not available when the court [made its initial
decision]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or
fact or to prevent manifest injustice.”“A motion
for reconsideration under Rule 7.1(i) is an extremely limited
procedural vehicle, and requests pursuant to [the rule] are
to be granted ‘sparingly.'”
Bida fails to demonstrate an intervening change in the
controlling law, an availability of new evidence, or a clear
error of law or fact in this Court's December 20, 2016
decision. Mr. Bida argues that summary judgment was
improperly granted because there remain “disputed
material facts.” He does not, however, identify new
evidence or facts that would support his position and instead
reiterates his prior argument, stated in his Opposition to
Summary Judgment, that he suffered injustices in state
court. Mr. Bida does not dispute that the Court
applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine correctly, nor
does he argue that this Court's analysis of his due
process claims was incorrect.
Court finds that Mr. Bida has not presented new information
or a compelling argument to warrant reconsideration of this
Court's Order granting Ms. Johnson's Motion for
appropriate Order follows:
on this Friday, April 21, 2017
ORDERED that Plaintiff Ilirjan Bida's motion for
reconsideration is DENIED on the merits.
 (ECF Docket Entry No.
(“D.E.”) 29, Pl.'s ...