IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JUSTIN M. CORLISS, : CIVIL NO. 3:CV-03-2201

:

Petitioner : (Judge Jones)

:

v. :

:

LOUIS S. FOLINO, et. al., :

Respondents :

O R D E R

September 23, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

Justin M. Corliss, (“Corliss” or “Petitioner”), an inmate presently confined in the

Green State Correctional Institution, in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania, filed this Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus (“the Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges a

conviction imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, in Stroudsburg,

Pennsylvania. (Rec. Doc. 1). By Order dated April 26, 2005, this Court denied the

Petition. (Rec. Doc. 47). 

Presently pending before the Court is Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of

this Court's April 26, 2005 Order. (Doc. 48). For the reasons set forth below, the

Motion will be denied. 

Case 4:03-cv-02201-JEJ-DB Document 57 Filed 09/23/05 Page 1 of 4
2

Discussion:

A motion for reconsideration is a device of limited utility. It may be used only to

seek remediation for manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered

evidence which, if discovered previously, might have affected the court's decision.

Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171

(1986); Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Maitland, Civil No. 87-0827 (M.D.

Pa. March 1, 1989) (Rambo, J.). Accordingly, a party seeking reconsideration must

demonstrate at least one of the following grounds prior to the court altering, or amending,

a standing judgment: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability

of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion; or (3) the need

to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Max's Seafood Café

v. Quineros, 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

appropriate in instances where the court has “...misunderstood a party, or has made a

decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made

an error not of reasoning, but of apprehension.” See Rohrbach v. AT & T Nassau Metals

Corp., 902 F. Supp. 523, 527 (M.D. Pa. 1995), vacated in part on other grounds on

reconsideration, 915 F. Supp. 712 (M.D. Pa. 1996), (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel

Case 4:03-cv-02201-JEJ-DB Document 57 Filed 09/23/05 Page 2 of 4
3

Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). It may not be used as a

means to reargue unsuccessful theories, or argue new facts or issues that were not

presented to the court in the context of the matter previously decided. Drysdale v.

Woerth, 153 F. Supp. 2d 678, 682 (E.D. Pa. 2001). “Because federal courts have a strong

interest in the finality of judgments, motions for reconsideration should be granted

sparingly.” Continental Casualty Co. v. Diversified Indus. Inc., 884 F.Supp. 937, 943

(E.D. Pa. 1995). 

Upon review of the Court's Order denying the Petition, the following was

concluded:

[T]he Court finds the majority of the issues raised by Petitioner to have not

been properly exhausted; however, two of the issues raised by Petitioner

have been exhausted and will be addressed on the merits. 

Rec. Doc. 47, at 11. With respect to the unexhausted claims, this Court found that:

Petitioner's above unexhausted challenges to the validity of his conviction

must be rejected on the ground that he has failed to pursue these issues in

the state courts and has not established appropriate grounds for this Court

to consider the claims in the first instance. 

Rec. Doc. 47, at 21. The Court denied the claims address on their merits for Corliss'

failure 

to establish that the state court decisions were contrary to, or involved an

unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined

Case 4:03-cv-02201-JEJ-DB Document 57 Filed 09/23/05 Page 3 of 4
by the Supreme Court of the United States.” Nor has he established that the

proceedings resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable

determination of facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court

proceedings. Thus, habeas corpus relief is unavailable under § 2254(d) and

the Court will deny the instant petition. 

Rec. Doc. 47, at 28-29. 

Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration fails to demonstrate that there has been an

intervening change in the law, that there is newly discovered evidence, or that there has

been a clear error of law or manifest injustice committed. Rather, Petitioner seeks only

to expand upon the same claims raised in his initial Petition. Corliss does not raise or set

forth any arguments in his Motion for Reconsideration that call into question our order

of April 26, 2005. That Order does not contain manifest errors of law or fact and Corliss

has not presented anything new, which if previously presented, might have affected our

decision. Consequently, the Motion for Reconsideration will be denied.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (doc. 48) is DENIED.

2. Petitioner's Motion for Merits Review and Speedy Disposition (doc.

55) is DISMISSED as moot. 

s/ John E. Jones III

JOHN E. JONES III

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-02201-JEJ-DB Document 57 Filed 09/23/05 Page 4 of 4