Free Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-00578-JJF Document 28 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OE DELAWARE
DAVID C. SAEEORD, II, :
Petitioner, E
v. E Civil Action No. 05-578-JJF
RICK KEARNEY, E
Warden, and ATTORNEY :
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF :
DELAWARE, :
Respondents. i
O R D E R
»w
At Wilmington this(5%>day of July, 2007;
IT IS ORDERED that:
Petitioner David C. Safford, II’s “Motion for Remedy”,
subtitled “Einal Addendum to Certiorari and Motion to Dismiss,”
which the Court construes as a motion to reconsider the Court’s
denial of Petitioner’s § 2254 application, is DENIED. (D.I. 26.)
A motion for reconsideration should be granted to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence. Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.
1985). Accordingly, a court may grant a motion for
reconsideration if the moving party shows one of the following:
(I) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence that was not available when the
court issued its order; or (3) the need to correct a clear error

Case 1:05-cv-00578-JJF Document 28 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 2 of 2
of law or fact or to prevent a manifest injustice. Max's Seafood
Cafe v. Quinteros, l76 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. l999)(citing North
River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d
Cir. 1995). A motion for reconsideration is not appropriate to
reargue issues that the court has already considered and decided.
Brambles USA Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F. Supp. 1239, 1240 (D.Del.
1990).
On August 28, 2006, the Court dismissed Petitioner’s federal
habeas application after determining that the claims asserted
therein were moot. (D.I. 24; D.I. 25.) Although not entirely
clear, Petitioner’s instant motion for reconsideration appears to
re—assert several claims raised in his habeas application. Thus,
Petitioner has not provided any ground warranting reconsideration
of his habeas application. To the extent Petitioner suggests
that the Court committed a clear error of law, the Court is
unpersuaded.
!&Q&xh%l
UN TE S T DISTRIC JUDGE
2