Opinion
CIVIL NO. 1:CV-08-0226.
June 12, 2008
MEMORANDUM
On February 5, 2008, Petitioner Tommy Alexander, Sr., an inmate currently confined at the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg ("USP Lewisburg") in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. By order dated April 1, 2008, this court dismissed the petition because Alexander failed to demonstrate that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides an inadequate or ineffective remedy to challenge the validity of his conviction.
Presently before the court is Alexander's motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 5.) The motion was filed on May 12, 2008, which was well beyond the ten days afforded to file a motion for reconsideration. See M.D. Pa. L.R. 7.10. Alexander claims that he did not receive a copy of this court's April 1, 2008 order until April 26, 2008. Assuming arguendo that his motion was timely filed, the court will dispose of it on the merits.
M.D. Pa. L.R. 7.10 states: Any motion for reconsideration or reargument shall be filed within ten (10) days after the entry of judgment, order or decree concerned."
I. Legal Standard
II. Discussion
Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki779 F.2d 906909Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros176 F.3d 669 677Drysdale v. Woerth 153 F. Supp. 2d 678682Continental Cas. Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc.884 F. Supp. 937943 28 U.S.C. § 2241 See
In his instant motion, Alexander states that the "new evidence" that has become available is "highly exculpatory evidence" consisting of "scientific proof" that the audiotapes the government relied on to secure his conviction were "doctored, reproduced and fabricated." ( See Doc. 5 at 1-2.) It appears from the exhibits to his petition that the "scientific proof" he refers to is an analysis of the audiotapes that was performed by a forensic scientist in 1996. ( See Doc. 2-1 at 36.) Alexander does not claim that the audiotapes were withheld from him prior to his trial. Moreover, he did not demonstrate that there was a basis for him to seek a writ of habeas corpus here based upon the forensic analysis of the audiotapes post-trial. The remainder of Alexander's motion for reconsideration restates portions of the argument he set forth in his petition. Having considered the standard applicable to motions for reconsideration, the court concludes that Alexander has not demonstrated any of the applicable grounds for this court to reconsider its decision to dismiss his petition. Accordingly, his motion for reconsideration will be denied.
An appropriate order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, in accordance with the foregoing Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 5) is DENIED.