Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00151-JJF Document 24 Filed 08/13/2008 Page1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
GUANGO F. CORREA, :
Petitioner, ;
v. Z Civil Action No. 07-151-JJF
PERRY PHELPS, Warden, and Z
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE ;
STATE OF DELAWARE, :
Respondents. S
O R D E R
Petitioner Guango F. Correa has filed a letter Motion For
Reconsideration, asking the Court to reconsider its denial of his
habeas application. (D.I. 22.) 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; (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 (3d Cir. 1999)(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.

Case1:07-cv—00151-JJF Document 24 Filed 08/13/2008 Page20f2
Brambles USA Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F. Supp. 1239, 1240 (D.Del.
1990).
On May 9, 2008, the Court dismissed Petitioner’s federal
habeas application as second or successive, and alternatively, as
procedurally barred. (D.I. 20; D.I. 21.) In his Motion,
Petitioner argues that he has demonstrated cause and prejudice
sufficient to excuse his procedural default, and he attaches a
copy of his original habeas application to support his argument.
(D.I. 22.) The Court has already considered, and rejected,
Petitioner’s argument. Moreover, 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 Is Hereby Ordered that Petitioner’s Motion
To Alter The Judgment (D.I. 22.) is DENIED. The Clerk of the
Court is directed to close the case.
DATE UN D S A DISTRIC UD
2