Adams v. Artuz
OPINION & ORDER: By an Order dated 7/29/1999 (the "1999 Order"), this Court denied Adams's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt.# 34. Subsequently, the Second Circuit dismissed petitione r's appeal of that Order, Dkt.# 39, and denied petitioner's request for consideration of a second or successive § 2254 petition, Dkt.# 44. On 1/24/2014, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of this court's 1999 Order. T he Court construes petitioner's 45 motion as being brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Accordingly, the petitioner's 45 motion for reconsideration is denied. SO ORDERED by Judge Allyne R. Ross, on 1/29/2014. C/mailed by Chambers to pro se Petitioner. (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NOT FOR ELECTRONIC
OR PRINT PUBLICATION
OPINION & ORDER
SUPERINTENDENT CHRISTOPHER ARTUZ,
ROSS, United States District Judge:
By an order dated July 29, 1999 (the "1999 Order"), this Court denied Adams's petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. #34. Subsequently, the Second
Circuit dismissed petitioner's appeal of that order, Dkt. #39, and denied petitioner's request for
consideration ofa second or successive § 2254 petition, Dkt. #44. On January 24,2014,
petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of this court's 1999 Order.
The Court construes petitioner's motion as being brought pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b). Gant v. Goord, No. 04-CV-6175, 2007 WL 2712344, at *1 & n.l
(W.D.N.Y. Sept. 13,2007); see also United States v. Clark, 984 F.3d 31,33 (2d Cir. 1993);
Schwamborn v. United States, 507 F. Supp. 2d 229,238-39 (E.D.N.Y. 2007). To the extent that
petitioner challenges the integrity of the prior federal habeas proceeding before this Court and
argues that this Court erred in its application of the law in its 1999 Order, petitioner's motion is
without merit. Petitioner's motion must be denied under the "law of the case doctrine," which
"prevents re-litigation in the district court not only of matters expressly decided by the appellate
court, but also precludes re-litigation of issues impliedly resolved by the appellate court's
mandate." Yick Man Mui v. United States, 614 F.3d 50,53 (2d Cir. 2010); accord Laster v.
Superintendent. Five Points Corr. Facility, No. 12-CV-06054MAT, 2014 WL 257268, at *1-*2
(W.D.N.Y. Jan. 23,2014) (denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration of his § 2254 petition
where appeal of habeas decision dismissed).l To the extent that petitioner's motion for
reconsideration attacks the merits of his underlying conviction as opposed to this Court's
application of the law, this Court may either "deny the motion as beyond the scope of Rule
60(b)" or allow the petitioner the opportunity to withdraw the motion before transferring it to the
appellate court as a successive habeas petition. Jackson v. Phillips, No. 03 CIV. 6987(DLC),
2008 WL 821831, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2008) (citing Harris v. United States, 367 F.3d 74,
82 (2d Cir. 2004».
Accordingly, the petitioner's motion for reconsideration is denied.
/S/ Judge Allyne R. Ross
Allyne R. R
January 29, 2014
Brooklyn, New York
1 The Court also notes that the unexplained fourteen-year delay between its 1999 Order and petitioner's motion
make reconsideration wholly inappropriate under Rule 60.
WCF P.O. BOX 1000
Woodbourne, NY 12788
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?