Sanchez v. USA

Filing 29

RULING denying 26 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 26 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 7/1/2014. (Lewis, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

JOSE LUIS SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:13-CV-760 (JCH)

JULY 1, 2014

RULING RE: PETITIONER’S MOTION (Doc. No. 26) FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
THE COURT’S MAY 20, 2014 RULING (Doc. No. 23) DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT
SENTENCE (Doc. No. 1) AND FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Petitioner Jose Luis Sanchez, litigating this action pro se, moves this court to
reconsider its ruling of May 20, 2014 (“the May 2014 Ruling”) (Doc. No. 23) denying his
Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (“the 2255
Motion”) (Doc. No. 1) and declining to issue a certificate of appealability. In the May
2014 Ruling, this court denied the 2255 Motion because the petitioner stated no
plausible claim for ineffective assistance of counsel and he waived his right to attack his
sentence collaterally. It also held that, because the petitioner had not made a
substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right, no certificate of appealability
would issue.
The standard of review applied to a motion for reconsideration is strict; such a
motion “will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling
decisions or data that the court overlooked.” See Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70
F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). A court should not grant a motion for reconsideration
where the moving party seeks only to relitigate an issue already decided. See id. In

1

general, granting a motion for reconsideration is only justified if there is “‘an intervening
change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct clear
error or prevent manifest injustice.’” See Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l. Mediation
Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (quoting 18 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper,
Federal Practice & Procedure § 4478 at 790).
The plaintiff has not pointed to any controlling law or to any facts that the court
overlooked in the March 2014 Ruling. He has not established that the Ruling
constituted clear error, and he has not shown that granting the present Motion is
necessary to prevent manifest injustice. Instead, the plaintiff’s Motion relitigates issues
already addressed by this court.
Likewise, the court has already considered the issuance of a certificate of
appealability and declined to do so. Nothing that the petitioner has brought forth in his
Motion for Reconsideration serves as a basis to issue the certificate.
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 1st day of July, 2014.

/s/ Janet C. Hall______________
Janet C. Hall
United States District Judge

2