Williams v. Artuz

Filing 24

OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied as untimely. Ordered by Judge Allyne R. Ross on 6/3/2013. C/M. (Siegfried, Evan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------------

)(

VINCENT WILLIAMS,

00-cv-1761 (ARR)

Petitioner,

NOT FOR ELECTRONIC
OR PRINT PUBLICATION

-againstOPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER ARTUZ, Superintendent,
Respondent.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

)(

ROSS, United States District Judge:
On May 30, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, Dkt. #23, of this court's
September 7, 2000 order, Dkt. #II, denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S. C. § 2254. Invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) and (3), Petitioner asserts that
his motion is based on "newly discovered evidence" and "fraud, misrepresentation, or other
misconduct by the respondent." Dkt. #23, at I; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), (3).
"Rule 60(b) specifically provides that a motion for relief from judgment may be made for
reasons (I), (2), and (3) not more than one year after the judgment ... was entered. This
limitations period is absolute .... " Warren v. Garvin, 219 F.3d Ill, 114 (2d Cir. 2000)(internal
citation and quotation marks omitted) (first alteration in original). Petitioner's motion for
reconsideration was filed more than a decade after judgment was entered in his case on
September 18, 2000, Dkt. # 12.

;

Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is therefore denied as
SO ORDERED.

s/ ARR

Dated:

June 3, 2013
Brooklyn, New York

2

unti~