govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-3_88-cr-00239-3

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
    
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
                                  Plaintiff 
 
                       v. 
 
LOUIS A. MANNA, 
 
                                 Defendant.  
 
 
Crim. Action No.: 3:88-cr-00239 
 
 
MEMORANDUM  
AND ORDER 
 
 
 
 
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Louis Manna’s writ of habeas corpus 
for multiple constitutional violations (28 U.S.C. § 2241) and second request for relief pursuant to 
the First Step Act (18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)).  (Moving Br., ECF No. 26).  The Court 
administratively terminated the habeas portion of Manna’s motion and ordered him to file a 
separate civil action for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.  (ECF No. 28).  This memorandum and 
order pertain to the remaining request for a sentence reduction and/or compassionate release.   
After a jury convicted Manna of numerous crimes, including racketeering, illegal 
gambling, and conspiracy to commit murder, the Hon. Maryanne Trump Barry sentenced him to 
80 years of imprisonment in 1989.   
 In September 2020, Manna submitted his first motion for compassionate release, which 
largely focused on his vulnerability to COVID-19 due to his age and various health problems.  
(ECF No. 16).  After full briefing, oral argument, and a lengthy review of Manna’s medical 
records, the Court denied the motion in December 2020.  (Mem. & Order, ECF No. 24).   
 In the present motion, Manna argues that if the Court accepts his contention that the 
Government “masked and concealed” evidence of Manna’s innocence, plus the facts in his first 
Case 3:88-cr-00239-RK     Document 29     Filed 06/10/21     Page 1 of 3 PageID: <pageID>
2 
 
motion, a modification of his sentence is warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).  Manna describes 
this application as one that “incorporates herein by reference and renews the prior requests made 
in” his prior compassionate release motion.  (Moving Br. at 29).  It appears he is seeking, for the 
second time, either compassionate release or a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 
3582(c)(1)(A)(i).  (Id. at 28-29). 
 To the Court, it appears that Manna’s use of the phrase “incorporates by reference and 
renews his prior requests” is tantamount to seeking reconsideration.  Manna has not 
demonstrated any grounds for reconsideration.  In a motion for reconsideration, “[t]he movant 
has the burden of demonstrating either: ‘(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the 
availability of new evidence that was not available when the court [issued its order]; or (3) the 
need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.’”  Andreyko v. Sunrise 
Sr. Living, Inc., 993 F. Supp. 2d 475, 477-78 (D.N.J. 2014) (alteration in original) (quoting 
Max’s Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)).  The facts and argument 
presented in his Memorandum are not newly discovered; in fact, they relate back to the trial – 
thirty years ago.  As such, Manna has not met the standard for reconsideration.     
 On the other hand, if Manna contends that he is filing a new motion under 18 U.S.C. § 
3582(c)(1)(A), his application fails because he has failed to comply with the statutory 
requirements, including exhaustion of administrative remedies.  That is, he may only move the 
Court after he has “fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of 
Prisons to bring a motion on the [his] behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a 
request by the warden of the defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier.”  First Step Act of 2018, 
Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)).  Manna has neither 
argued nor attached evidence that he exhausted his administrative remedies before bringing the 
Case 3:88-cr-00239-RK     Document 29     Filed 06/10/21     Page 2 of 3 PageID: <pageID>
3 
 
present motion.  As such, the Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate this motion until the 
exhaustion requirement is met.   
 In conclusion, the Court will deny Manna’s second motion for compassionate release 
and/or a sentence reduction without prejudice so that he may resubmit it after exhausting his 
administrative remedies, if he wishes to do so.   
ORDER 
 This matter is before this Court on Defendant Louis Manna’s second motion for 
compassionate release (ECF No. 26); and the Court having carefully reviewed and taken into 
consideration the submissions of the parties, as well as the arguments and exhibits therein 
presented, and for good cause shown, and for all of the foregoing reasons, 
IT IS on this 9th day of June 2021, 
 ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for compassionate release (ECF No. 26) is denied 
without prejudice.  
 
  
      s/Peter G. Sheridan    
      PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.  
 
Case 3:88-cr-00239-RK     Document 29     Filed 06/10/21     Page 3 of 3 PageID: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight