NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

RANDY BAADHIO, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-1235 (MLC)

:

Petitioner, : O P I N I O N

:

v. :

:

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, :

:

Respondent. :

 :

THE COURT having issued an Opinion and Order on September

12, 2011 (“Opinion and Order”) dismissing the petition for writ

of coram nobis (dkt. entry nos. 7 & 8); and it appearing that

petitioner is moving for reconsideration of the Opinion and Order

pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) (dkt. entry no. 11); and

IT APPEARING that a motion for reconsideration is “an

extremely limited procedural vehicle,” Tehan v. Disab. Mgmt.

Servs., Inc., 111 F.Supp.2d 542, 549 (D.N.J. 2000), that is

granted “very sparingly,” Cataldo v. Moses, 361 F.Supp.2d 420,

433 (D.N.J. 2004); and it appearing that its purpose is to

correct manifest errors of law or present newly-discovered

evidence, see Max’s Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v.

Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999); and it further

appearing that a court may grant a motion for reconsideration if

the movant shows at least one of the following: (1) an

intervening change in the controlling law, (2) the availability

of new evidence that was previously unavailable, or (3) that it

Case 3:11-cv-01235-MLC Document 12 Filed 11/13/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 49
is necessary to correct a clear error of law or fact or to

prevent manifest injustice, see id.; Cataldo, 361 F.Supp.2d at

432-33; and it also appearing that reconsideration is not

warranted where (1) the movant merely recapitulates the cases and

arguments previously analyzed by the court, see Arista Recs.,

Inc. v. Flea World, Inc., 356 F.Supp.2d 411, 416 (D.N.J. 2005);

see also Tehan, 111 F.Supp.2d at 549 (“Motions for

reconsideration will not be granted where a party simply asks the

court to analyze the same facts and cases it had already

considered in reaching its original decision.”), or (2) the

apparent purpose of the motion is for the movant to express

disagreement with the court’s initial decision, see Tehan, 111

F.Supp.2d at 549; and it further appearing that a motion should

only be granted where facts or controlling legal authority were

presented to, but not considered by, the court, see Mauro v. N.J.

Supreme Court, 238 Fed.Appx. 791, 793 (3d Cir. 2007); and

THE COURT having carefully reviewed the arguments of

petitioner; and petitioner arguing that the petition should now

be considered a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 as he is now in “custody” (dkt. entry no. 11, Mot.

for Recons. at 1); and 

THE COURT finding that petitioner (1) has not established

that facts or controlling legal authority were presented to, but

overlooked by, the Court, see Mauro, 238 Fed.Appx. at 793, and

2

Case 3:11-cv-01235-MLC Document 12 Filed 11/13/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 50
(2) is merely recapitulating the arguments previously raised and

asserting his disagreement with the Court’s decision, see Arista

Recs., 356 F.Supp.2d at 416; Tehan, 111 F.Supp.2d at 549; and the

Court finding that petitioner has not shown a clear error of law

or fact, see Max’s Seafood Cafe, 176 F.3d at 677; and the Court

finding that while petitioner may currently be in the custody of

the State of New Jersey, it does not appear that he is in custody

pursuant to the conviction he challenges in his petition; and the

Court finding that petitioner in fact has a habeas petition

pending before the Court challenging his current custody, see

Baadhio v. State of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 11-7120 (JAP);

and the Court concluding that reconsideration of the Opinion and

Order is therefore inappropriate; and the Court thus intending to

deny the motion for reconsideration; and the Court having

considered the matter without oral argument pursuant to Local

Civil Rules 7.1(i) and 78.1(b); and for good cause appearing, the

Court will issue an appropriate order. 

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: November 13, 2012

3

Case 3:11-cv-01235-MLC Document 12 Filed 11/13/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 51