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.

Hubbard v. D'Ilio

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

September 5, 2018

FRANK HUBBARD, Petitioner,
v.
STEPHEN D'ILIO, et al., Respondents.

          Frank 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

          OPINION

          HON. ANNE E. THOMPSON, DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This 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.)

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Local 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).

         To 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 manifest injustice.

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)).

         The 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).

         III. DISCUSSION

         Petitioner presents two claims in support of his reconsideration motion. (See, generally, ECF No. 29.)

         First, 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). Petitioner ...


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.