The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
KEITH DOUGHERTY,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 23-cv-22744 (CCC)
v.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
GEORGE WYSOL, et al.,
Respondents.
This matter comes before the Court on the petitioner Keith Dougherty’s (“Petitioner”)
“Motion to Strike Order” (ECF No. 10), which the Court liberally construes due to Petitioner’s
pro se status as a motion for reconsideration, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e).
Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241.
On May 20, 2024, the Honorable Robert B. Kugler, United States District Judge (ret)1,
dismissed Petitioner’s habeas petition, finding (1) a petitioner must bring his § 2241 petition in the
jurisdiction where he is incarcerated and Petitioner was not incarcerated in the District of New
Jersey, and (2) to the extent that Petitioner was seeking relief from his federal criminal judgment
of conviction and sentence, he should instead file a § 2255 motion in the District where he was
convicted, the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See ECF Nos. 8,9.
The scope of a motion for reconsideration of a final judgment brought pursuant to Rule
59(e) is “extremely limited.” Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 415 (3d Cir. 2011). A Rule 59(e)
motion may be employed “only to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence.” Id. “‘Accordingly, a judgment may be altered or amended [only] if the party
seeking reconsideration shows at least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in
the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court
[decided the motion], or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest
injustice.’” Id. (quoting Howard Hess Dental Labs., Inc. v. Dentsply Int’l Inc., 602 F.2d 237, 251
(3d Cir. 2010)). In this context, manifest injustice “generally . . . means that the Court overlooked
some dispositive factual or legal matter that was presented to it,” or that a “direct, obvious, and
observable” error occurred. See Brown v. Zickefoose, No. 11-3330, 2011 WL 5007829, at *2, n.
3 (D.N.J. 2011) (internal quotation omitted).
In his motion for reconsideration, Petitioner presents no arguments that this Court erred in
its legal analysis or conclusion, nor does he present new evidence that was not available when the
Court denied his habeas petition. The Court denied Petitioner’s habeas petition, finding a § 2241
petition must be brought in the district where the petitioner is currently incarcerated, and Petitioner
was not in custody in the District of New Jersey. Petitioner has not shown that the dismissal of his
habeas petition was erroneous and has otherwise failed to set forth any valid basis for
reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of his petition. His motion for reconsideration is therefore
denied.
Also before the Court is Petitioner’s “Motion for Panel Rehearing” (ECF No. 13) and two
seemingly related documents (ECF Nos. 14, 15). Petitioner has improperly filed these submissions
before this Court. While it is unclear what relief Petitioner is requesting, a review of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Docket shows that Petitioner’s “Motion for Panel
Rehearing” and the related documents are copies of documents Petitioner filed with the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals in appealing a decision from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See Court of Appeals Docket No. 23-2989, Doc. Nos. 24, 25, 27.
Although Petitioner added the docket number for this instant action to these documents, Petitioner
fails to assert how they are related to his § 2241 habeas petition. As such, the Court will dismiss
Petitioner’s “Motion for Panel Rehearing” as improperly filed.
IT IS THEREFORE on this 27th day of January, 2024,
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall re-open this matter for the purposes of this
Order only; and it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 10) is DENIED; and it
is further
ORDRED that Petitioner’s “Motion for Panel Rehearing” (ECF No. 13) is DENIED; and
it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon Petitioner by
regular mail, and shall CLOSE the file.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Claire C. Cecchi
Hon. Claire C. Cecchi,
United States District Judge