WADE v. WARDEN FCI FAIRTON et al, No. 1:2015cv08925 - Document 23 (D.N.J. 2017)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 8/22/2017. (rtm, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
WADE v. WARDEN FCI FAIRTON et al Doc. 23 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE HUGH MAURICE ALLEN WADE, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, FCI FAIRTON, and U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION Respondents. : : : Civil Action No. 15-8925 (RMB) : : : OPINION : : : : : : BUMB, District Judge This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order denying his amended petition1 for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Mot. to Reconsider Habeas Corpus Pet. Based on New Evidence (“Mot. to Reconsider,”) ECF No. 21.) Petitioner also submitted an amendment to his motion for reconsideration. No. 22.) (Amendment, ECF For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is denied. I. BACKGROUND Petitioner, Hugh Maurice Allen Wade, is a federal inmate presently confined at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, 1 The Court permitted Petitioner addendum. (Opinion, ECF No. 10.) to amend his petition by Dockets.Justia.com Minnesota.2 On January 30, 1979, Petitioner was sentenced, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, to a prison term of fifteen years for distribution of heroin, a consecutive ten years for bank robbery, and a 5-year special parole term to follow. (Gervasoni Certificate, ECF No. 7-4, Ex. 1 [Sentence Monitoring Computation Data, pp. 7-8]). Petitioner continues to serve this sentence based on a series of subsequent parole revocations. In his (Opinion, ECF No. 15 at 2-5.) habeas petition, Petitioner challenged the April 2015 U.S. Parole Commission’s revocation decision in his case. (Am. Pet., ECF Nos. 1, 8.) he asks the Court to In his motion for reconsideration, reconsider his claim that the “BOP unlawfully discriminates against ‘Old Law’ inmates by holding them to a different standard in regards to (RIS) reduction in sentence.” contends (Mot. to Reconsider, ECF No. 21 at 1.) he has received new information Petitioner contradicting the Court’s reason for denying his claim. (Id. at 1.) In his amendment to his motion for reconsideration, Petitioner submitted additional new information, information he sent to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a status report. (Amendment, ECF No. 22.) The new information is: 2 Petitioner was confined at FCI-Fairton, in Fairton, New Jersey when he filed the present petition. (Opinion, ECF No. 15 at 12.) 2 1). On February 8, 2017, the appellant/petitioner appeared before the U.S. Parole Commission. The result was the same, that is, continuation to expiration. The petitioner was not considered for compassionate release. 2). As of April 6, 2017, the Bureau of Prisons has redacted Policy Statement 5050.49, removing 18 U.S.C. § 4295 from the compassionate release component of the policy (RIS). The Court notes that it denied Petitioner’s equal protection claim based on “Old Law” versus “New Law” inmates without prejudice because Petitioner had not administratively exhausted the claim. II. (Opinion, ECF No. 15 at 8-9.) DISCUSSION “Rule 59(e) permits the filing of a motion to alter or amend a judgment. A motion under Rule 59(e) is a ‘device to relitigate the original issue’ decided by the district court, and used to allege legal error.” U.S. v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282, 288 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting Smith v. Evans, 853 F.2d 155, 158–59 (3d Cir. 1988)). A proper Rule 59(e) motion relies 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.” Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). 3 Plaintiff asserts he received new information pertinent to his claim, a response [dated January 11, 2017] from the Warden at FMC-Rochester, advising him that he was not eligible for compassionate release U.S.C. § 4205(a). pursuant to BOP Policy 5050.49 and 18 This Court’s reason for denying the “Old Law” equal protection claim is that it was unexhausted. The proper procedure is for Petitioner to file a new habeas petition once the claim is fully administratively exhausted. The Warden’s January 11, 2017 response to Petitioner is not new evidence pertinent to exhausted the this Court’s claim, decision nor is the that Petitioner information had not submitted by Petitioner to the Clerk of the Court of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. III. CONCLUSION For herewith, these the reasons, Court in the denies accompanying Petitioner’s Order motion filed for reconsideration. DATED: August 22, 2017 s/RENÉE MARIE BUMB Renée Marie Bumb United States District Judge 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
