NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

_______________________________

CARNELL GIBBS, :

: Civil Action No. 11-1137 (NLH)

Petitioner, :

:

v. : OPINION

:

GREG BARTKOWSKI, et al., :

:

Respondents. :

APPEARANCES:

Carnell Gibbs, Pro Se

407358/SBI 399805C

New Jersey State Prison

P.O. Box 861

Trenton, NJ 08625

James F. Smith

Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office

4997 Unami Boulevard

Mays Landing, NJ 08330

Attorney for Respondents

HILLMAN, District Judge

Pending before this Court is a Motion for Reconsideration 

(docket entry 21) filed by Petitioner on September 12, 2012.

Respondents have not filed opposition to the motion. The 

motion is decided without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons stated below, the motion 

Case 1:11-cv-01137-NLH Document 23 Filed 03/18/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 230
will be denied, and the Clerk will be directed to close the 

file.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was convicted of 

first degree murder, possession of a handgun for an unlawful 

purpose, unlawful possession of a handgun, and conspiracy. His 

judgment of conviction, entered on June 2, 2000 in the Superior 

Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County, led to a sentence of fifty 

years with a thirty year period of parole ineligibility. The 

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (“Appellate 

Division”) affirmed Petitioner’s conviction on May 24, 2002.1 

The New Jersey Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s petition for 

certification by order filed on October 21, 2002.

Petitioner filed a motion for post-conviction relief 

(“PCR”) in the trial court on May 16, 2003.2 PCR was denied on 

August 22, 2007. Petitioner filed an appeal to the PCR decision 

in the Appellate Division on January 12, 2010. The Appellate 

Division affirmed on May 21, 2010. Petitioner then appealed to 

 1

In his initial Petition, Petitioner lists this date as June 

21, 2002. The May 24, 2002 date is taken from Petitioner’s most 

recent filing. 

2

In his initial Petition, Petitioner lists this date as June 

2, 2003. The May 16, 2003 date is taken from Petitioner’s most 

recent filing.

Case 1:11-cv-01137-NLH Document 23 Filed 03/18/13 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 231
the New Jersey Supreme Court on June 2, 2010 and certification 

was denied on October 5, 2010. 

Petitioner signed the instant petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for filing on February 9, 

2011, and it was docketed by the Clerk of the Court on February 

25, 2011. He was advised of his rights pursuant to Mason v. 

Meyers, 208 F.3d 414 (3d Cir. 2000), and an Order to Answer was 

issued. On July 8, 2011, Petitioner filed his first motion to 

stay this matter (docket entry no. 11), claiming that he wished

to pursue nine previously unexhausted issues in state court. 

None of those proposed claims were raised in the initial 

petition. Petitioner stated that those issues were recently 

discovered with the help of a paralegal at the prison.

On January 9, 2012, this Court entered a Notice and Order 

(docket entry no. 14) denying Petitioner’s first motion to stay, 

without prejudice to Petitioner filing a response which would 

include a properly supported motion to amend the petition to add 

new claims contained in the addendum to Petitioner’s Motion to 

Stay, to equitably toll the statute of limitations, and to stay 

the petition, as amended.

Petitioner filed his response, including an amended 

Petition (docket entry no. 15), a request to proceed in forma 

Case 1:11-cv-01137-NLH Document 23 Filed 03/18/13 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 232
pauperis3 (docket entry no. 16), and an Amended Motion for Stay 

and Abeyance (docket entry no. 17). Petitioner’s amended motion 

set forth his arguments as to why he believed that the Petition 

should be stayed, and provided further dates, as listed above, 

regarding the timeliness of the Petition. 

On August 20, 2012, this Court entered an Opinion and Order 

dismissing this matter as time-barred and denied Petitioner’s 

Amended Motion for Stay and Abeyance as moot. Petitioner then 

filed this Motion for Reconsideration on September 12, 2012.

DISCUSSION

In his motion, Petitioner attempts to reassert his stance 

that the Petition is not time-barred. However, he presents no 

new evidence to support this contention. 

Motions for reconsideration are not expressly recognized in 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See United States v. 

Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F. Supp.2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999). In 

the District of New Jersey, Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) governs 

motions for reconsideration.

Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) permits a party to seek 

reconsideration by the Court for matters “which [it] believes 

the Judge . . . has overlooked” when it ruled on the motion. 

 3

Petitioner paid the filing fee on April 25, 2011.

Case 1:11-cv-01137-NLH Document 23 Filed 03/18/13 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 233
See L. Civ. R. 7.1(i); see also NL Indus., Inc. v. Commercial 

Union Ins., 935 F. Supp. 513, 515 (D.N.J. 1996). The standard 

for re-argument is high and reconsideration is to be granted 

only sparingly. See United States v. Jones, 158 F.R.D. 309, 314 

(D.N.J. 1994). The movant has the burden of demonstrating 

either: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) 

the availability of new evidence that was not available when the 

court [issued its order]; or (3) the need to correct a clear 

error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Max’s 

Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). 

The Court will grant a motion for reconsideration only where its 

prior decision has overlooked a factual or legal issue that may 

alter the disposition of the matter. See Compaction Sys. Corp., 

88 F. Supp.2d at 345; see also L. Civ. R. 7.1(i). “The word 

‘overlooked’ is the operative term in the Rule.” Bowers v. 

Nat’l Collegiate Athletics Ass’n, 130 F. Supp.2d 610, 612; see

also Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F. Supp.2d at 345.

Ordinarily, a motion for reconsideration may address only 

those matters of fact or issues of law which were presented to, 

but not considered by, the court in the course of making the 

decision at issue. See SPIRG v. Monsanto Co., 727 F. Supp. 876, 

878 (D.N.J.), aff’d, 891 F.2d 283 (3d Cir. 1989). Thus, 

Case 1:11-cv-01137-NLH Document 23 Filed 03/18/13 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 234
reconsideration is not to be used as a means of expanding the 

record to include matters not originally before the court. See

Bowers, 130 F. Supp.2d at 613. Absent unusual circumstances, a 

court should reject new evidence which was not presented when 

the court made the contested decision. See Resorts Int’l v. 

Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 826, 831 n.3 

(D.N.J. 1992). A party seeking to introduce new evidence on 

reconsideration bears the burden of first demonstrating that 

evidence was unavailable or unknown at the time of the original 

hearing. See Levinson v. Regal Ware, Inc., No. 89-1298, 1989 WL 

205724, at *3 (D.N.J. Oct. 6, 1989).

Moreover, L. Civ. R. 7.1(i) does not allow parties to 

restate arguments which the court has already considered. See

G-69 v. Degnan, 748 F. Supp. 274, 275 (D.N.J. 1990). Thus, a 

difference of opinion with the court’s decision should be dealt 

with through the normal appellate process. See Bowers, 130 F. 

Supp.2d at 612; see also NL Industries, Inc., 935 F. Supp. at 

513 (“Reconsideration motions ... may not be used to re-litigate 

old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that 

could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.”). In 

other words, “[a] motion for reconsideration should not provide 

the parties with an opportunity for a second bite at the apple.” 

Case 1:11-cv-01137-NLH Document 23 Filed 03/18/13 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 235
Tishcio v. Bontex, Inc., 16 F. Supp.2d 511, 533 (D.N.J. 1998) 

(citation omitted).

Here, this Court has reviewed Petitioner’s motion for 

reconsideration, and finds that the arguments presented by 

Petitioner appear to be an attempt to re-litigate issues 

previously raised by Petitioner in this matter. Petitioner asks 

the Court to reconsider its ruling regarding timeliness. 

However, this issue was previously examined and considered by 

this Court in its Opinion. This Court finds nothing in its 

application of law or legal conclusions made in the August 2012 

Opinion to warrant reconsideration. 

Petitioner does not point to any “new” or “overlooked” 

factual or legal issues that may alter the disposition of the 

matter, as required in a motion for reconsideration. This Court 

finds that Petitioner fails to present any new facts or 

evidence, or even “overlooked” facts or legal issues, to satisfy 

the threshold for granting reconsideration. 

Further, Petitioner has not presented the Court with 

changes in controlling law, or a clear error of law or fact that 

would necessitate a different ruling in order to prevent a 

manifest injustice in this instance. He may not use a motion 

Case 1:11-cv-01137-NLH Document 23 Filed 03/18/13 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 236
for reconsideration to re-litigate a matter that has been 

previously adjudicated by this Court. 

CONCLUSION

Therefore, for the reasons expressed above, Petitioner’s 

motion is denied for lack of merit. An appropriate Order 

follows.

At Camden, New Jersey s/ Noel L. Hillman 

Noel L. Hillman

United States District Judge

Dated: March 18, 2013

Case 1:11-cv-01137-NLH Document 23 Filed 03/18/13 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 237