Patel v. Martuscello

Filing 15

ORDER denying 13 Motion for Reconsideration of Court's May 9, 2011 order denying petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel. Ordered by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 2/28/2012. Copy mailed to pro se petitioner.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------x
VINOD PATEL,
Petitioner,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
10-CV-5695 (CBA)

-againstD. MARTUSCELLO, SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------x
AMON, Chief United States District Judge:

Vinod Patel, who has petitioned the Court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254, requested that the Court appoint counsel to represent him in his federal habeas
proceedings. On May 9, 2011, this Court issued an order denying Patel’s motion. Patel moves
for reconsideration of that order.
A motion for reconsideration brought pursuant to Local Rule 6.3 “will only be granted if
the moving party presents factual matters or controlling decisions the court overlooked that
might have materially influenced its decision.” Ocello v. City of New York, 2008 WL 2827424,
at *5 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (citing Pereira v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 921 F. Supp. 1121, 1123
(S.D.N.Y. 1996)). “‘A motion for reconsideration may not be used to advance new facts, issues
or arguments not previously presented to the Court, nor may it be used as a vehicle for
relitigating issues already decided by the Court.’” Montblanc-Simplo GmbH v. Colibri Corp.,
739 F. Supp. 2d 143, 147 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (quoting Davidson v. Scully, 172 F. Supp. 2d 458,
461 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)).
Patel argues that the Court made various factual errors in its order denying his motion for
appointment of counsel, and also argues that the Court may have overlooked certain documents
in the record. The Court has reviewed Patel’s motion papers and concludes that Patel has not
1

presented any factual or legal matters that were overlooked by the Court that would have altered
its decision to deny Patel’s request for counsel. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is
denied.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February 28, 2012
/s/
Carol Bagley Amon
United States District Judge

2