United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Susan D. Wigenton, United States District Judge.
or about June 12, 2018, Petitioner Hanzha Darby filed a
motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255 seeking to raise a claim pursuant to the Supreme
Court's decisions in Johnson v. United States,
__U.S.__, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), and Sessions v.
Dimaya, __U.S.__, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018). (ECF No. 1).
Petitioner did not use the form required by the local rules,
this Court administratively terminated this matter on June
19, 2018, until such time as Petitioner refiled his petition
on the correct form. (ECF No. 2). Petitioner thereafter
refiled his petition on the correct from on July 3, 2018.
(ECF No. 4).
July 12, 2017, this Court entered an order and opinion which
screened and denied Petitioner's motion to vacate
sentence as Petitioner's Johnson/Dimaya
claim was utterly without merit as Petitioner's
conviction for carjacking accompanied by a conviction for
brandishing a weapon in violation of § 924(c) was
categorically a crime of violence even assuming that
Johnson or Dimaya had invalidated the
residual clause of § 924(c). (ECF Nos. 6-7).
than two months later, on September 17, 2018, Petitioner
filed with this Court a document in which he asked for
“extension of time so that he may properly respond to
[the Court's screening] opinion.” (ECF No. 9). At
the time, it was not clear what deadline Petitioner sought to
have extended, but it now appears what he was seeking was an
extension of time within which to file a motion for
reconsideration of this Court's final order denying his
motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
October 4, 2018, filed with this Court a response, which this
Court construes to be a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's screening decision,
brought either pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) or Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
Motions for reconsideration must be brought either pursuant
to Local Rule 7.1(i) - which applies to all decisions of this
Court - or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) - which
applies only to reconsideration challenges to the entry of
judgment. To the extent a motion is brought pursuant to Rule
59(e), it “must be filed no later than 28 days after
the entry of judgment, ” and this Court cannot extend
that deadline. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Local Rule 7.1(i) has an even more
stringent time limitation - motions pursuant to the local
rule must be “served and filed within 14 days after the
entry of the order” being challenged. Local Civil Rule
7.1(i); see also Smart v. Aramark, Inc.,
618 Fed.Appx. 728, 730, 730 n. 3 (3d Cir. 2015) (noting that
Rule 7.1(i) reconsideration motions have a fourteen day
deadline while Rule 59(e) motions have a twenty-eight day
this matter, the Court entered its decision on July 12, 2018.
Petitioner did not file his motion for reconsideration until
October 4, 2018, three months later. Indeed, even were this
Court to instead give Petitioner the benefit of the date on
which he asked for an extension of time, an extension the
Court notes it has no authority to grant, see Fed.
R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2), that letter was postmarked on September
17, 2018, more than two months after the denial of
Petitioner's motion to vacate sentence. Petitioner's
motion was thus filed several months after the expiration of
the time for filing a motion for reconsideration pursuant to
the Local Rules, and approximately two months after the
twenty eight day time period for filing a motion pursuant to
Rule 59(e) had expired. Petitioner's current motion is
thus clearly time barred and will be denied as such.
conclusion, Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (ECF
No. 10) is DENIED as time barred. An appropriate order
 The Court also noted that the motion
was most likely time barred, but did not rely on the time bar
for the purposes of disposing of Petitioner's motion as
Petitioner's sole claim was clearly meritless.
(See ECF No. 6 at 4-5 n. 1).
 Petitioner explicitly argues that this
Court erred in denying his petition and denying a certificate
of appealability and requests that the Court
“review” its decision to deny his motion and/or
review its decision denying him a certificate of
appealability. This Court ...