United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Hubbard, Petitioner pro se
Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney General Office of
the New Jersey Attorney General R.J. Hughes Justice Complex
Attorney for Respondents Stephen D'llio, Attorney General
of the State of New Jersey, and New Jersey Parole Board
ANNE E. THOMPSON, DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on pro se Petitioner
Frank Hubbard's June 21, 2018 motion seeking
reconsideration (see ECF No. 29) of the Court's
June 13, 2018 denial of Petitioner's amended petition for
a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 2 8 U.S.C. § 2254.
(See June 13, 2018 Op. and Order, ECF Nos. 27 and 28.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Civil Rule 7.1 allows a party to move for reconsideration of
"matter[s] or controlling decisions which the party
believes the Judge or Magistrate Judge has overlooked . . .
." L. Civ. R. 7.l(i). Whether to grant a motion for
reconsideration is a matter within the Court's
discretion, but it should only be granted where such facts or
legal authority were indeed presented but overlooked. See
DeLong v. Raymond Int'l Inc., 622 F.2d 1135, 1140
(3d Cir. 1980), overruled on other grounds by Croker v.
Boeing Co., 662 F.2d 975 (3d Cir. 1.981); see also
Williams v. Sullivan, 818 F.Supp. 92, 93 (D.N.J. 1993).
prevail on a motion for reconsideration, ultimately, the
movant must show:
(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence that was not available when the
court ... [rendered the judgment in question]; or (3) the
need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent
U.S. ex rel. Shumann v. Astrazeneca Pharm. L.P., 769
F.3d 837, 848-49 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Max's Seafood
Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669,
677 (3d Cir. 1999)).
standard of review involved in a motion for reconsideration
is high and relief is to be granted sparingly. United
States v. Jones, 158 F.R.D. 309, 314 (D.N.J. 1994).
presents two claims in support of his reconsideration motion.
(See, generally, ECF No. 29.)
Petitioner asserts that the Court improperly relied on two
unpublished District of New Jersey cases, Righetti v.
Sherrer, No. 07-cv-1608, 2008 WL 4755745 (D.N.J. Oct.
28, 2008), and Jenkins v. D'Amico, No.
06-cv-2027, 2007 WL 1797649 (D.N.J. June 20, 2007).