2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-9-2014

Justice Allah v. Administrator New Jersey State

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 14-1388

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2014 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Justice Allah v. Administrator New Jersey State" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 682.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/682
BLD-291 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-1388

___________

JUSTICE RASIDEEN ALLAH,

 Appellant

v.

ADMINISTRATOR NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON; COMMISSIONER OF NEW 

JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ALFORD KANDELL, Assistant 

Administrator New Jersey State Prison; SCHYONERS, Sgt. First Shift Supervisor-New 

Jersey State Prison; GROVE/GROVER, Sgt. Second Shift Supervisor - New Jersey State 

Prison; K. HARRISON, Senior Correctional Officer - New Jersey State Prison; 

NAPARELLA, Senior Correctional Officer - New Jersey State Prison

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 3-08-cv-01753)

District Judge: Honorable Joel A. Pisano

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Due to a Jurisdictional Defect 

and Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action 

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

June 26, 2014

Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 9, 2014)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM
2

Justice Rasideen Allah, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals from the 

District Court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 59(e). For the reasons set forth below, we will summarily affirm.1

 

I.

Allah, a New Jersey prisoner, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

against various employees and administrators of New Jersey State Prison. The complaint 

was dismissed on January 25, 2012, when the District Court granted the defendants’ 

motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. Allah then filed a motion for 

reconsideration, which the District Court denied on September 21, 2012. Allah appealed, 

and this Court affirmed the District Court’s decision in C.A. No. 12-4095. While this 

Court’s decision was pending, Allah moved in the District Court for relief from judgment 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3). The District Court dismissed the 

motion as moot on November 19, 2013. Allah moved for reconsideration of that order, 

and the District Court denied his motion on January 6, 2014. Allah timely appealed.2

 

 1 We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We may affirm 

on any basis supported by the record. Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 

2011) (per curiam). 

2 Our review is limited to the District Court’s January 6 order, as Allah’s notice of appeal 

was not filed within thirty days of the entry of any other order. See Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(1)(A). Even though the notice of appeal was received in the District Court on 

February 10, 2014, it was dated February 4, 2014, and contained two declarations under 

penalty of perjury that it was true and correct. Allah also provided a mail receipt 

indicating that the notice was given to prison authorities for mailing on that date. Under 

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988), it was therefore timely. 
3

II.

We review an order denying a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. 

Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (per curiam). The District Court 

correctly denied Allah’s motion for reconsideration. “A proper Rule 59(e) motion . . . 

must rely on one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the 

availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error of law or prevent 

manifest injustice.” Id. (citations omitted). 

Allah asked for reconsideration of the order dismissing as moot his motion for 

relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). In that motion, 

Allah challenged the District Court’s conclusion that he had failed to exhaust his 

administrative remedies, and he attempted to re-litigate issues already decided by the 

District Court. We note that this Court affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary 

judgment without addressing whether Allah had exhausted his administrative remedies. 

Furthermore, the District Court was bound by this Court’s decision in C.A. 12-4095, as 

“[i]t is axiomatic that on remand for further proceedings after decision by an appellate 

court, the trial court must proceed in accordance with the mandate and the law of the case 

as established on appeal.” Bankers Trust Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 761 F.2d 943, 

949 (3d Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we discern no error in the District 

Court’s decision to deny Allah’s Rule 59(e) motion.

There being no substantial question presented on appeal, we will summarily 

affirm.