Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Motion to Reconsider Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel Muhammad v. Meo

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

August 14, 2018

D.E. 42, Motion to Reconsider Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel MUHAMMAD
v.
MEO et al

          LETTER OPINION-ORDER

          Honorable Steve Mannion, U.S.M.J.

         Dear Litigants:

         This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff Yusuf Abdullah Muhammad's (“Mr. Muhammad”) Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel.[1] The Court denied Mr. Muhammad's two previous motions for the appointment of pro bono counsel.[2] Mr. Muhammad's first motion failed to show that the Tabron[3] factors weighed in his favor, [4] and Mr. Muhammad's second motion simply restated the same arguments without offering any new analysis.[5] The Court has reviewed Mr. Muhammad's current motion and for the reasons set forth herein, the motion is DENIED.

         A party moving for reconsideration must file “[a] brief setting forth concisely the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge has overlooked.”[6] To successfully move for reconsideration, the moving party must show one of following circumstances:

(1) [A]n intervening change in the controlling law;
(2) [T]he availability of new evidence that was not available when the court [decided the previous motion]; or
(3) [T]he need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.[7]

         Even if the moving party can show one of these circumstances, courts should rarely grant motions for reconsideration.[8] Moreover, “reconsideration is not appropriate where the motion only raises a party's disagreement with the Court's initial decision.”[9]

         Here, Mr. Muhammad highlights that Defendant Francis Meo (“Mr. Meo”) failed to make an appearance, [10] but Mr. Muhammad continues to assert the same arguments without showing that the Tabron factors weigh in his favor or showing that any of the three circumstances warranting reconsideration exist. Mr. Muhammad fails to show that the law has changed, new evidence has become available, or the Court legally or factually erred or created manifest injustice in denying his previous motion.[11] Instead, as with his second motion, Mr. Muhammad's current motion is “duplicative of his [original one].”[12] Therefore, the Court denies Mr. Muhammad's motion because Mr. Muhammad fails to meet the reconsideration standard and the Tabron factors continue to weigh against appinting him pro bono counsel.[13]

         The Court is, as always, sympathetic to any disadvantages of the parties that come before it. Accordingly, the Court will continue monitoring the concerns Mr. Muhammad has raised. Should Mr. Muhammad's circumstances change as the case continues, the Court may choose to appoint counsel sua sponte.[14]

         The Clerk of the Court is ordered to mail a copy of this Order to Mr. Muhammad.

         IT SO ORDERED.

---------


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.