# CHI v. TRATE

> District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · October 11, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10418165

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 11, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10418165

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANSON CHI, )
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 1:20-cv-49
WARDEN J. HUTCHINSON, !
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
In this civil action, Anson Chi, an inmate at the federal Correctional Institution at Albion,
sought a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. On July 20, 2022, Magistrate Judge] □

Richard A. Lanzillo issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) opining that Petitioner’s
claims should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See ECF No. 36. The undersigned adopted
the R&R in a Memorandum Order entered on August 25, 2022. ECF No. 41. Pending before th
Court is Chi’s “Rule 59(e) Motion for Reconsideration to Alter or Amend the Judgment.” ECF
No. 42..
In his motion, Chi argues that Magistrate Judge Lanzillo intentionally misconstrued his
habeas claims for the purpose of denying relief. Chi further asserts that the undersigned
“overlooked or misapprehended [Judge] Lanzillo’s judicial misconduct since they are
colleagues... .” ECF No. 42 at 6. He concludes that this Court “should correct this clear error
of law and fact to prevent manifest injustice.” Jd. at 6-7. Chi contrasts Judge Lanzillo’s framing
of the §2241 claims with “unbiased” AUSA J. acqueline Brown’s framing of the claims in her
responsive brief, id. at 3, which he apparently considers to be more accurate.

! By order of court entered on July 20, 2022, ECF No. 37, the current Warden of FCI-McKean, “J. Hutchinson,” was
substituted as the relevant Respondent in lieu of the former Warden, “B.Trate” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is “to correct manifest errors of law or fact
or to present newly discovered evidence.” Max's Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677
(3d Cir. 1999). A motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) must
therefore rely on one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the availability
of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. N.
River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 Gd Cir. 1995). A motion for
reconsideration should be granted “sparingly,” and “is not properly grounded in a request for a
district court to rethink a decision it has already made, rightly or wrongly.” Williams v.
Pittsburgh, 32 F. Supp. 2d 236, 238 (W.D. Pa. 1998). Motions to reconsider should not be used
to relitigate issues already resolved by the court, nor should they be used to advance additional
arguments which could have been made by the movant before judgment. Reich v. Compton, 834
F. Supp. 753, 755 (E.D. Pa. 1993), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 57 F.3d 270 Gd Cir. 1995).
Having fully considered Chi’s motion, the undersigned finds neither clear error in the
challenged ruling nor any basis for concluding that the Court’s ruling will result in manifest
injustice if not revisited. While Chi insists that his claims have been misstated, he fails to offer
any legal analysis in support of his conclusion that the Court’s “judicial misconduct” has
“deprived [him] of habeas relief that he should’ve gotten pursuant to the United States
Constitution.” ECF No. 42 at 6. But as the government explained in its responsive brief (cited
with approval by Chi), the §2241 claims in this case do not fall within the Third Circuit’s narrow
interpretation of the “savings clause” in 28 U.S.C. §2255(e). Consequently, the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over Chi’s claims as asserted by him and (accurately) articulated by
the government. In essence, reconsideration would require this Court to revisit claims already
considered; however, requests for a “second bite of the apple” are not an appropriate basis for

relief on a motion for reconsideration. See, e.g., Boone v. Daughtery, No. 12-1333, 2013 WL
5836329, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2013) (citing Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., 52 F.3d
1220, 1231 (3d Cir. 1995)). Because Chi has not articulated proper grounds for reconsideration
of the Court’s August 25, 2022 ruling, relief under Rule 59(e) is not warranted in this case. For
these reasons,
IT IS ORDERED this 11th day of October, 2022, that Petitioner’s “Rule 59( e) Motion
for Reconsideration to Alter or Amend the Judgment,” ECF No. [42], shall be, and hereby is,
DENIED.

ae fp □
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER
United States District Judge

cm: Anson Chi
44588-177
McKean Federal Correctional Institution
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. Box 8000
Bradford, PA 16701
(Via U.S Mail)
Jacqueline Brown, AUSA
The Honorable Richard A. Lanzillo
(via CM/ECF)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10418165. Public record. Not legal advice.