1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RICHARD SHIPE, :

:

Petitioner :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4: CV-04-2021

:

CHARLES ERICKSON, ET AL., : (Judge McClure)

:

Respondents :

ORDER

May 3, 2006

Background

Richard Shipe, an inmate presently confined at the Retreat State Correctional

Institution, Hunlock Creek, Pennsylvania, filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Shipe pled guilty to charges of robbery,

burglary (4 counts), and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the Northumberland

County Court of Common Pleas. On December 29, 1997, he was sentenced to a ten

(10) to thirty-five (35) year term of incarceration.

Petitioner argued that he was entitled to federal habeas corpus relief on the

grounds that: (1) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not filing a direct

Case 4:04-cv-02021-JFM-JVW Document 15 Filed 05/03/06 Page 1 of 4
2

appeal; (2) the Northumberland County Clerk of Court denied him access to the courts

by rejecting his pro se Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition; and (3) trial

counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. 

By Memorandum and Order dated October 14, 2005, Shipe’s petition was

dismissed as untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Presently pending is the

Petitioner’s motion seeking reconsideration. See Record document no. 13. For the

reasons outlined below, Shipe’s motion will be denied.

Discussion

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

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

precedent or 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). 

It has also been held that a motion for reconsideration is appropriate in instances

such as where the court has " . . . misunderstood a party, or has made a decision

outside the adversarial issues presented to the court by 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

Case 4:04-cv-02021-JFM-JVW Document 15 Filed 05/03/06 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983). "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). 

As noted earlier, Shipe’s petition was dismissed as untimely, specifically, that it

was not filed within the one year period authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)-(2). In

reaching that determination, this Court concluded that Petitioner was required to seek

federal habeas corpus relief on or before January 29, 1999. It was additionally noted

that under the standards announced in Merritt v. Blaine, 326 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2003)

and Schleueter v. Varner, 2004 WL 2035180 (3d Cir. Sept. 14, 2004), Shipe was not

entitled to statutory tolling for the period that any nunc pro tunc submission was

pending in state court. Furthermore, this Court added that the facts of this case did not

constitute the extraordinary circumstances required for equitable tolling.

In his pending motion for reconsideration, Shipe reasserts arguments previously

presented to this Court. Petitioner’s pending submissions do not present any new

facts or arguments which would undermine this Court’s prior determination. It remains

the conclusion of this Court that Shipe’s petition was untimely filed and he has failed to

establish any basis for equitable tolling of the controlling statute of limitations. 

Case 4:04-cv-02021-JFM-JVW Document 15 Filed 05/03/06 Page 3 of 4
4

Consequently,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

Petitioner’s motion seeking reconsideration (Record

document no. 13) is DENIED.

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

JAMES F. McCLURE, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-02021-JFM-JVW Document 15 Filed 05/03/06 Page 4 of 4