Mendoza v. Lee

Filing 19

ORDER denying 16 Motion to Amend/Correct/Supplement; For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner's motion (Docket Entry 16) is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order and the Court's Memorandum and Order dated October 24, 2012, (Docket Entry 10), to Petitioner at the address set forth in his motion. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 8/2/2017. C/M; C/ECF (Valle, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------X
JOSE S. MENDOZA,
Petitioner,
-againstORDER
09-CV-3814(JS)

WILLIAM LEE, Superintendent of Green
Haven Correctional Facility,
Defendant.
----------------------------------------X
SEYBERT, District Judge:
On

September

3,

2009,

petitioner

Jose

S.

Mendoza

(“Petitioner”) commenced this action by filing a petition for writ
of habeas corpus (the “Petition”).

(Pet., Docket Entry 1.)

Presently pending before the Court is Petitioner’s pro se motion.1
(Pet.’s Mot., Docket Entry 16.)

Petitioner alleges that he does

not speak English and his attorney “assist[ed] [him] with [his]
notice of appeal, appellate division, and court of appeal and with
a[ ] Habeas Corpus, but never submitted a[ ] certificate of
appealability and the Judge closed [his] case.”
3, 6.)

(Pet.’s Mot. at

Petitioner contends that his attorney failed to notify him

of the outcome of his case.

(Pet.’s Mot. at 6.)

The Court is unable to discern the nature of Petitioner’s
motion or the particular relief he is requesting.

However, to the

The docket reflects that Petitioner is represented by counsel.
However, since this matter concluded approximately five years
ago and Petitioner’s counsel has not filed a response, the Court
will treat Petitioner’s motion as a pro se application.
1

extent Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Memorandum
and Order dated October 24, 2012, in which the Court denied his
Petition, the Court declines to grant such request.
Docket Entry 10.)

(See Order,

Putting aside the timing of Petitioner’s

application, Petitioner has failed to identify “an intervening
change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or
the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injunctive.”
LoCurto v. U.S., No. 10-CV-4589, 2017 WL 980296, at *1 (E.D.N.Y.
Mar. 10, 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Parenthetically, Petitioner’s allegation that his counsel failed
to “submit[ ] a certificate of appealability” is misplaced, as
this Court declined to issue a certificate of appealability when
it denied the Petition.

(See Order at 12.)
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s motion (Docket
Entry 16) is DENIED.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail

a copy of this Order and the Court’s Memorandum and Order dated
October 24, 2012, (Docket Entry 10), to Petitioner at the address
set forth in his motion.
SO ORDERED.

/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT______
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
DATED:

August
2 , 2017
Central Islip, New York
2