United States District Court, D. New Jersey
ALAN D. GARRETT, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
D. Garrett, Plaintiff pro se
B. SIMANDLE U.S. District Judge
Plaintiff Alan D. Garrett moves to reopen his complaint after
this Court dismissed it without prejudice. [Docket Entry 15].
He further moves to consolidate this matter with a previously
dismissed civil rights complaint, Garrett v. United
States District Court District of New Jersey, No.
17-2924 (D.N.J. Jul. 14, 2017). [Docket Entry 14].
Plaintiff filed his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics 403 U.S. 388 (1971) on October 1, 2018.
[Complaint, Docket Entry 1]. The Court granted his in
forma pauperis application on October 26, 2018. [Docket
November 27, 2018, the Court dismissed the complaint without
prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to its 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) screening obligations. [Docket
Entries 10 & 11].
December 3, 2018, the Court received a motion to consolidate
the complaint with a complaint that was dismissed by the
Honorable Brian R. Martinotti, D.N.J., on July 14, 2017.
Garrett, No. 17-2924, as well as his pending motion
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Garrett v. United
States, No. 17-3254 (D.N.J. filed May 8, 2017). [Docket
Entry 14]. Plaintiff also moved to reopen the instant
complaint and stay it pending a decision in his § 2255
case. [Docket Entry 15].
Local Civil Rule 7.1 allows a party to seek a motion for
reargument or reconsideration of “matter[s] or
controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge or
Magistrate Judge has overlooked . . . .” Local Civ. R.
7.1(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. 1981); see also Williams v.
Sullivan, 818 F.Supp. 92, 93 (D.N.J. 1993).
prevail on a motion for reconsideration, 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
Café 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).
“The Court will grant a motion for reconsideration only
where its prior decision has overlooked a factual or legal
issue that may alter the disposition of the matter. The word
‘overlooked' is the operative term in the
Rule.” Andreyko v. Sunrise Sr. Living, Inc.,
993 F.Supp.2d 475, 478 (D.N.J. 2014) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted).
disagreement with the Court's decision is not a basis for
reconsideration. United States v. Compaction Sys.
Corp., 88 F.Supp.2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999).
Plaintiff has not set forth a valid reason for
reconsideration of this Court's order. As the Court noted
in its opinion, Plaintiff's claims, as best they can be
discerned by the Court, are presently barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). His complaint is
premature. The Court has inherent power to manage its docket
and declines to stay the matter pending resolution of the
§ 2255 motion. See Eash v. Riggins Trucking
Inc., 757 F.2d 557, 567 (3d Cir. 1985) (“A
court's inherent power to manage its caseload, control
its docket . . . provides authority to fashion tools that aid
the court in getting on with the business of deciding
cases.”). Plaintiff's disagreement with the
Court's decision is best resolved in his appeal to the
Court cannot consolidate Plaintiff's two complaints as
Civil Action 17-2924 was dismissed in July 2017 and Plaintiff
never appealed that dismissal.
Because Plaintiff fails to meet the high standard for