Free Order on Motion to Alter Judgment - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01435-GIVIS Document 33 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTIUCT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JAMES W. RILEY, )
)
Petitioner, )
v. J Civ. A. No. 04-1435-GMS
THOMAS CARROLL, Warden, et. al., g
Respondents. )
O R D E R
At Wilmington this L day of KJ % , 2007;
IT IS ORDERED that:
Pro se petitioner James W. Ri1ey’s Rule 59(e) "Motion to Alter the Judgment [Denying
Petitioner’s § 2254 Petition]" is DENIED} (D.I. 28.)
A Rule 59 motion 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 pursuant to Rule 59 if the moving
party shows one of the following: (1) 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 of law or fact or to prevent a manifest injustice. Max ’s Seafood Cay?
v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)(citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA
Reinsurance C0., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). A motion for reconsideration is not
‘A1though Desmond filed the instant motion on June 28, 2007, and then Bled a notice of
appeal on July 2, 2007, the court has jurisdiction over the motion pursuant to Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(4)(iv).

Case 1:04-cv—01435-Gl\/IS Document 33 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 2 of 2
appropriate to reargue issues that the court has already considered and decided. Brambles USA
Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F. Supp. 1239, 1240 (D.De1. 1990).
Here, Riley contends that the court’s denial of his conflict of interest claims constitutes a
clear error of law. Riley, however, merely re-argues the issues already considered and decided in
the court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 19, 2007. Thus, Riley has not presented
any reason warranting reconsideration of the court’s decision to deny Riley’s § 2254 petition.
ED ATES DISTRICT JUDGR I
F I L E D
J U L 1 9 2007
$$2-t%$E‘é%TE‘CE#2§E
2