Rene v. Holder

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Presently before the court is Mr. Rene's 6 motion for reconsideration of the denial of his habeas petition. Mr. Rene's motion for reconsideration does not present any facts or law overlooked by the court in determining that his petition was barred by the REAL ID Act. Accordingly, the 6 motion for reconsideration is denied. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. SO ORDERED by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto, on 7/10/2014. C/mailed. (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)

..........

PtLED

IN nu:~·{'S Offl~~:::

U.8.~Cl"tXK!F.n ~:D.N.V.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

·*

----------------------------------------------------------------)(

GROOKLYN OFfJt.CE

ANDERSON RENE,
Petitioner,

JUL

1

o ~!4 *

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

-against14 CV 3170 (KAM)
ERIC H. HOLDER,
Respondent.

----------------------------------------------------------------)(
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:
On May 19, 2014, petitioner Anderson Rene, appearingpro se and currently detained at the
Etowah Detention Center in Alabama, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S. C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention and order of removal. See generally Pet., ECF
No. 1. On June 2, 2014, the undersigned denied Mr. Rene's petition. Mem. & Order, ECF No. 4.
Presently before the court is Mr. Rene's motion for reconsideration of the denial of his habeas
petition. ECF No. 6.
Reconsideration of a previous order "is within the sound discretion of the district court, ..
. and is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and
conservation of scarce judicial resources." Mangino v. Inc. Village of Patchogue, 814 F. Supp.
2d 242, 247 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). "The standard for
granting a motion for reconsideration is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless
the moving party can identify controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked -

matters,

in other words, that may reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the district
court." Shrader v. CSXTransp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). However, motions for
reconsideration "may not be used to advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously

presented to the Court, nor may [they] be used as a vehicle for relitigating issues already decided
by the Court." Davidson v. Scully, 172 F. Supp. 2d 458, 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (citing Shrader, 70
F.3d at 257).
The court previously denied Mr. Rene's habeas petition because the REAL ID Act, which
was enacted in 2005, prohibits habeas corpus review of challenges to orders of removal. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) ("a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals ... shall be
the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal"); see also Marquez-

Almanzar v. INS., 418 F.3d 210, 215 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding that "8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5)
unequivocally eliminates habeas corpus review of orders ofremoval" in district courts).
Mr. Rene's motion for reconsideration does not present any facts or law overlooked by
the court in determining that his petition was barred by the REAL ID Act. Accordingly, the
motion for reconsideration is denied. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that
any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis
status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45
( 1962). The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to mail a copy of this order to the petitioner
at the address listed on the docket sheet.
SO ORDERED.

/S/ Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto
-K-iy_o_A~·.~i{/i..__.ht~su-m~ot~o~~~~-·--­

United States District Judge
Dated: July 10, 2014
Brooklyn, New York