The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
MATTHEW HANEY, as Trustee of the )
Gooseberry Island Trust, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) CIVIL ACTION
) NO. 21-10718-JGD
TOWN OF MASHPEE, and JONATHAN )
FURBUSH, WILLIAM BLAISEDELL, SCOTT )
GOLDSTEIN, NORMAN GOULD, BRADFORD )
PITTSLEY, and SHARON SANGELEER, as )
they are members and are collectively )
the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF )
THE TOWN OF MASHPEE, )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
April 25, 2022
DEIN, U.S.M.J.
Plaintiff Matthew Haney (“Haney”), as Trustee of the Gooseberry Island Trust (“Trust”),
has brought this action against the Town of Mashpee (“Mashpee” or the “Town”) and the
members of its Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging an
unconstitutional regulatory taking of private property under the Fifth Amendment of the
United States Constitution (Count I), and asking this court to exercise its supplemental
jurisdiction over a claim of inverse condemnation under Article X of the Massachusetts
Constitution and state common law (Count II). This is the latest in a series of administrative and
court proceedings initiated by Haney relating to his attempt to construct a home on Gooseberry
Island.
On March 22, 2022, this court issued its “Memorandum of Decision and Order on
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss” dismissing the complaint without prejudice. (Docket No. 24).
This matter is presently before the court on Haney’s “Motion for Reconsider[a]tion” by which
the plaintiff has asked this court to reconsider its decision because the court allegedly (1) erred
in finding that Haney did not submit a steel bridge proposal to the ZBA; (2) misread the decision
of the ZBA on the 2018 variances applications; (3) failed to read the allegations of the
Complaint in a manner favorable to the plaintiff; and (4) incorrectly concluded that Haney’s
claims were not ripe for adjudication. (Docket No. 25). After careful review of the plaintiff’s
“Memorandum in Support of Motion for Reconsider[a]tion” (Docket No. 25-1) and the
defendants’ opposition thereto (“Opp.”) (Docket No. 26), the Motion for Reconsideration is
DENIED.
In order to succeed on a motion for reconsideration, “’the movant must demonstrate
either that newly discovered evidence (not previously available) has come to light or that the
rendering court committed a manifest error of law.’” Mulero-Abreu v. Puerto Rico Police Dep’t,
675 F.3d 88, 94-95 (1st Cir. 2012) (quoting Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir.
2006)). “[A] motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended
the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law, but is not appropriate as a vehicle to reargue
an issue previously addressed by the court when the motion merely advances new arguments
or supporting facts which were available at the time of the original motion.” Platten v.
HGBermuda Exempted Ltd., 437 F.3d 118, 139 (1st Cir. 2006) (internal punctuation and
quotation omitted). Haney’s motion fails to meet this standard for reconsideration.
For the reasons detailed more fully in this court’s Memorandum of Decision and Order
of March 22, 2022, and the defendant’s Opposition to the motion for reconsideration, this
court sees no reason to modify its interpretation of the facts as found in the record or its rulings
of law.
The Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 25) is DENIED.
/ s / Judith Gail Dein
Judith Gail Dein
United States Magistrate Judge