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


File Size: 14.1 kB
Pages: 2
Date: January 23, 2007
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 414 Words, 2,446 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/8787/26.pdf

Download Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Delaware ( 14.1 kB)


Preview Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:04-cv-01435-GMS

Document 26

Filed 01/23/2007

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE JAMES W. RILEY, Pro Se Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

v.

Civil Action No. 04-1435 (GMS)

THOMAS CARROLL, Warden, and CARL C. DANBERG, Attorney General of the State of Delaware, Defendants.

ORDER WHEREAS, on November 9, 2004, James W. Riley ("Riley"), who is presently incarcerated at the Delaware Correctional Center (the "DCC"), filed a pro se civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, against Thomas Carroll ("Carroll"), and the State of Delaware Attorney General of the State of Delaware (collectively, the "defendants"); WHEREAS, on April 7, 2005, Riley filed a letter with the court seeking appointment of counsel (D.I. 10). WHEREAS, on March 29, 2006, the court issued an Order (D.I. 22) denying Riley's motion based on a habeas petitioner having no automatic constitutional or statutory right to representation in a federal habeas proceeding.1 WHEREAS, on April 7, 2006, Riley filed a Motion for Reconsideration (D.I. 25), asking the court to reconsider its March 29, 2006 Order;

See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); United States v. Roberson, 194 F. 3d 408, 415 n.5 (3d Cir. 1999); Reese v. Fulcomer, F. 2d 247, 263 (3d Cir. 1991).

1

Case 1:04-cv-01435-GMS

Document 26

Filed 01/23/2007

Page 2 of 2

WHEREAS, a motion for reconsideration should be granted only "sparingly"2; WHEREAS, in this district, motions for reconsideration are granted only if it appears that the court has patently misunderstood a party, has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning, but of apprehension3; and WHEREAS, the court concludes that none of the three above-cited conditions exist in the present case; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: The plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (D.I. 25) is DENIED.

Dated: January 23, 2007

/s/ Gregory M. Sleet UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Tristrata Tech. Inc. v. ICN Pharms., Inc., 313 F. Supp. 2d 405, 407 (D. Del. 2004); Karr v. Castle, 768 F. Supp. 1087, 1090 (D. Del. 1991). See, e.g., Shering Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 293, 295 (D. Del. 1998); Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F. Supp. 1239, 1240 (D. Del. 1990) (citing Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bonhannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99 (E.D. Va. 1983); see also Karr, 768 F. Supp. at 1090 (citing same). 2
3

2