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

n Case 1:07-cv-00767118-F Document8 Filed O1/O4/2008 Page1 of2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
l FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
RONALD G. JOHNSON, :
Petitioner, Q
v. E Civ. Act. No. 07-767-JJF
RAPHAEL WILLIAMS, Warden, and Q
ATTORNEY GENERAL OP THE STATE :
OF DELAWARE, :
Respondents. i
O R D E R
1. Petitioner Ronald G. Johnson’s “Motion To Withdraw
Motion To Dismiss Petitioner’s Prior Motion for Reconsideration”
(D.I. 7.) is GRANTED.
2. In turn, Petitioner’s “Motion for Reconsideration” will
be denied. (D.I. 5.) 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 P.2d
906, 909 (Bd Cir. 1985). Accordingly, a court may grant a motion
for reconsideration 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
Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (Bd Cir. 1999)(citing North
River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d

Case 1:[email protected] D0cument8 Filed O1/O4/2008 Page20f2
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 December 11, 2007, the Court dismissed Petitioner’s
federal habeas application because Petitioner was attempting to
abort the litigation of his future state criminal proceeding.
(D.I. 4.) Tn his Motion For Reconsideration, Petitioner contends
the Court erred because he was seeking discovery, not pre—tria1
release. Even if the Court were to agree that Petitioner
requested discovery rather than pre—tria1 release, the Court
cannot grant such relief in a habeas corpus proceeding. To the
extent Petitioner suggests that the Court committed a clear error
of law, the Court is unpersuaded. Therefore, the Court concludes
that Petitioner’s argument does not warrant reconsideration of
its decision.
Now Therefore, It ls Hereby Ordered that Petitioner’s Motion
For Reconsideration (D.T. 5.) is DENIED.
, »» \{ 2é25?8/ {N_ 2 i2YO@°”*#)J
nét I UNE@D ST§E ISTRlCT Jlfsora
2

Case 1:07-cv-00767-JJF

Document 8

Filed 01/04/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00767-JJF

Document 8

Filed 01/04/2008

Page 2 of 2