Smith v. State of New York et al
Filing
70
OPINION & ORDER: For these reasons, the Petitioner's requests are DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Opinion to Petitioner at his address on the docket and to show proof of service on the docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 6/24/2019) (rj) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PATRICK RICARDO SMITH,
Petitioner,
No. l 3-CV-8423 (NSR)
-againstBARBARA UNDERWOOD, Attorney General for
the State of New York, and TIMOTHY MCKOY
Administrator of Franklin Correctional Center, North
Carolina,
OPINION & ORDER
Respondents.
NELSONS. ROMAN, United States District Judge
Petitioner Patrick Smith, an inmate at the Franklin Correctional Center, North Carolina,
had filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 challenging his
custody for a conviction obtained by the State of New York. On December 7, 2018, following a
reconstruction hearing, the Court denied the petition. Petitioner now seeks a new trial pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59 and relief from the judgment pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 60(b)(1 ), (2), and (3 ). For the reasons set forth below, those
requests are DENIED.
BACKGROUND
The Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the factual and procedural background of
this case and, below, only summarizes relevant procedural background.
Upon receipt of Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus ("Petition") on
November 22, 2013 (ECF No. 1), the Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Lisa
Margaret Smith to issue a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") on the Petition. (ECF No. 5.)
This matter was subsequently re-assigned and referred to Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy,
who issued an R & Ron January 9, 2017 and recommended this Court deny the Petition. (ECF
No. 38). Petitioner filed timely objections to the R & R. (ECF No. 44.) The Court partially
adopted the R & Ron September 5, 2017, denying all but one of Petitioner's claims (ECF No.
45). However, the Court agreed with Petitioner that the trial court failed to conduct the requisite
analysis under the third step of the analysis articulated in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79
(1986)-an assessment of the credibility of the prosecution's explanation for peremptorily
striking juror Jasmine Jackson-and held a reconstruction hearing to determine whether there
had been a Batson violation at the trial court level.
Based on the evidence presented at the reconstruction hearing, the Court accepted the
government's neutral reason for striking Ms. Jackson and held that Petitioner did not establish
purposeful discrimination. Smith v. Underwood, No. 13-CV-8423(NSR), 2018 WL 6493100, at
*5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2018). In reaching this conclusion, the Court reviewed the voir dire
transcript from the trial, contemporaneous notes from Westchester County Assistant District
Attorney Fred Green, the prosecutor at that trial, and Mr. Green's testimony at the reconstruction
hearing. Id. at *5 - 7. Because the Court determined that Petitioner was not entitled to a grant of
2
habeas corpus for a Batson violation and because the Court had otherwise agreed with Judge
McCarthy's R & R, Petitioner's writ for habeas corpus was denied. Id. at *7.
DISCUSSION
I.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59 request
A motion for a new trial under Rule 59 must be made no later than twenty-eight days
after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 59(b). The Court entered judgment denying the
Petition on December 7, 2018, but Petitioner did not request relief under Rule 59 until May 24,
2019, months after the judgment. Therefore, Petitioner's Rule 59 request is denied as untimely.
II.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) reconsideration requests
Petitioner seeks relief under Rules 60(b)(l), (2), and (3). Upon a motion for relief under
Rule 60(b)(l), (2), or (3), a "court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding" because of (1) "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect," (2) "newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b)," or (3) "fraud (whether previously
called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party." Fed. R.
Civ. P. Rules 60(b)(l), (2), & (3).
The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is strict. Shrader v. CSX Transp.,
Inc., 70 F.3d 255,257 (2d Cir.1995). Generally, a court will deny reconsideration unless the
moving party brings forward controlling decisions or data overlooked by the court "that might
reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Id. Whether to grant a Rule
60(b) motion is committed to the sound discretion of the district courts, and the district courts
will not grant such a motion "absent the demonstration of' extraordinary circumstances.' "
3
Massop v. US. Postal Serv., 493 F. App'x 231,232 (2d Cir. 2012); Stevens v. Miller, 676 F.3d
62, 67 (2d Cir. 2012)
The Court finds no grounds to grant Petitioner reconsideration or relief from the
judgment.
Petitioner argues that his indictment was insufficient because it tracked statutory
language and did not provide him with sufficient notice. These are identical to the arguments
Petitioner raised in his objection to the R & R. (Pet'r's Mem. of Law in Supp. of Resp. to R. &
R. pp. 3 - 5, ECF No. 44.) Judge McCarthy already addressed these arguments, and the Court
adopted Judge McCarthy's assessment. "Judge McCarthy correctly stated the applicable law
regarding a constitutionally sufficient indictment and found that the indictment here 'sufficiently
informed Petitioner of the charges against him.' Therefore, the Court agrees that his second
claim is without merit." Smith v. Schneiderman, No. 13-CV-8423(NSR), 2017 WL 3917606, at
*3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2017) (citations omitted).
Petitioner also argues that the trial court's failure to make a credibility determination
under Batson was not cured by the reconstruction hearing. The Court disagrees. As the Court
previously held, the passage of ten years since Petitioner was convicted does not make
reconstruction of the record infeasible, Smith, 2017 WL 3917606, at *9, and, based on the
evidence presented at the reconstruction hearing, the Court was able to cure the trial court's
error. Smith v. Underwood, No. 13-CV-8423(NSR), 2018 WL 6493100, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7,
2018) ("Based on the evidence provided at the reconstruction hearing, the voir dire transcript
from the trial court, testimony from Mr. Green, and Mr. Green's personal notes from jury
selection, the Court can reasonably assess the credibility of the prosecution's nondiscriminatory
reason for striking the juror at issue, Ms. Jackson."). Petitioner presents no controlling authority,
4
overlooked evidence, or evidence of fraud to contradict the Court's determination that the
reconstruction hearing was feasible.
Additionally, Petitioner presents no newly discovered evidence that could not have been
discovered within twenty-eight days after the judgment denying the Petition. Petitioner cites to
Mr. Green's testimony as new evidence. However, this evidence was revealed during the
reconstruction hearing 1 on October 23, 2018, well before the judgment at issue was published on
December 7, 2018.
As there are no extraordinary circumstances to warrant reconsideration in this matter, the
Court in its discretion denies Petitioner's requests.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Petitioner's requests are DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is
directed to mail a copy of this Opinion to Petitioner at his address on the docket and to show
proof of service on the docket.
Dated:
JuneZ'f,2019
White Plains, New York
(~EL-SO}fs~ioMAN
United States District Judge
1
Petitioner argues that the meetings between Respondents' counsel and Mr. Green to prepare for the
reconstruction hearing were prejudicial, but Petitioner learned about these meetings at the reconstruction hearing
which was before the Court issued the judgment denying his Petition.
5
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?