Afrika v. The State of New York
Filing
24
ORDER denying in its entirety 23 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 4/4/14. (JMC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___________________________________
NACHE AFRIKA,
DECISION AND ORDER
No. 12-CV-0537MAT
Petitioner,
-vsTHE STATE OF NEW YORK
Respondent.
________________________________
I.
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner
Nache
Afrika
(“Petitioner”
or
“Afrika”)
was
convicted of Robbery in the First Degree (N.Y. Penal Law (“Penal
Law”)
§
§
160.15[4]),
130.35[1]),
and
Rape
in
the
First
Degree
(Penal
Law
Sodomy
in
the
First
Degree
(Penal
Law
§ 130.50[1). In a Decision and Order dated November 4, 2013, this
Court denied Petitioner’s application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a
writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 21).
As of the date of this
Decision and Order, Petitioner has not filed a notice of appeal.
Petitioner filed the instant motion, pursuant to Rules 52(b),
60(b)(1),(6), and 62(b)(2),(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, seeking “an amended decision and order, and/or an
additional findings, and/or reconsideration, and stay, of the
District Court’s decision and order . . . and vacating such order
and granting petition, or, at minimum, ordering an evidentiary
hearing . . . .”
Dkt. No. 23 at 1-2.
For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Afrika’s Motion Pursuant to Rules 52(b)
Under Rule 52(b), “[o]n a party’s motion . . . the court may
amend its findings-or make additional findings-and may amend the
judgment accordingly.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b). “A party moving
pursuant to Rule 52(b) may seek to correct ‘manifest errors of law
or fact ...’, or in some limited situations, to present newly
discovered
evidence.”
Soberman
v.
Groff
Studios
Corp.,
99-CIV-1005(DLC), 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12671, 2000 WL 1253211, at
*1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2000) (citations omitted).
Here, Afrika disputes the Court’s determination that his
habeas claims lacked merit and he was not entitled to habeas
relief.
Consequently, he attempts to substantively re-argue the
following two habeas claims (claims one and three in the habeas
petition): (1) that the trial court erred in granting the People’s
application to obtain a DNA sample from him and subsequently erred
in failing to suppress the results obtained therefrom;
and,
(2) that the evidence was legally insufficient at trial to support
his conviction given his perceived weaknesses of the DNA evidence.
See Dkt. No. 23 at 3.
The Court reviewed both of these claims and
determined they lacked merit.
Dkt. No. 21 at 12-15, 17-19.
While Afrika makes it clear –- as he did in his habeas
petition
--
that
he
believes
his
constitutional
rights
were
violated and he is entitled to habeas relief, he does not point to
-2-
anything in the record that undermines the factual findings or
legal conclusions of the Court, nor has he pointed to any newly
discovered evidence.
Accordingly, the Court finds no basis to amend the judgment,
and Petitioner’s motion pursuant to Rule 52(b) is denied.
B.
Afrika’s Motion Pursuant to Rule 60(b)
“[R]elief under Rule 60(b) is available for a previous habeas
proceeding only when the Rule 60(b) motion attacks the integrity of
the previous habeas proceeding rather than the underlying criminal
conviction.”
2004).
Harris v. United States, 367 F.3d 74, 77 (2d Cir.
This means that the issues in Petitioner’s motion must
demonstrate that the Court overlooked significant matters that
destroy the integrity of the habeas proceeding such that the court
would have otherwise granted him habeas relief.
Petitioner has not pointed to any such issue, despite his
conclusory statement to the contrary that the Court “fail[ed] to
address
two
meritorious
issues
deliberately
bypassed
which
otherwise would have compelled its grant of the instant habeas
petition[.]”
claims
that
Dkt. No. 23 at 4.
the
Court
The two “meritorious issues” he
“failed
to
address”
and
“deliberately
bypassed” are, in sum and substance, claims one and three of the
habeas petition, which the Court thoroughly reviewed under AEDPA’s
deferential
standard
of
review
Dkt. No. 21 at 12-15, 17-19.
-3-
and
concluded
lacked
merit.
Although Petitioner has couched his argument as a challenge to
the
integrity
of
the
habeas
proceeding,
he,
in
substance,
challenges the underlying conviction by arguing that the People
“utilized constitutionally suppressed and inadmissible evidence” at
his trial and that the manner in which the People’s forensic
serologist performed DNA testing was flawed.
Dkt. No. 23 at 4.
Because Petitioner attempts to re-litigate the very same
issues previously reviewed by this Court, the Court finds that his
motion is beyond the scope of 60(b) and therefore denies it on this
basis.
Additionally, the Court finds that it would be a waste of
judicial resources to treat the motion as a successive petition,
given that the Court previously reviewed all of the claims in
Afrika’s habeas petition on the merits, and found that habeas
relief was not warranted.
See Harris v. United States, 367 F.3d
74, 82 (2d Cir. 2004) (“A Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion to reopen
a habeas proceeding that attacks the underlying criminal conviction
but not the initial habeas proceeding must either be (1) treated as
a second or successive habeas petition, or (2) denied as beyond the
scope of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).”).
C.
Afrika’s Motion Pursuant to Rule 62(b)
Petitioner also moves for relief pursuant to Rule 62(b), which
provides,
in
part,
that
a
court
has
the
discretion
to
stay
execution or enforcement of a judgment pending disposition of a
-4-
motion made pursuant to Rule 52(b) or Rule 60. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 62(b)(2),(4).
Rule 62, read in its entirety, reflects the federal policy of
providing a judgment creditor with security during the pendency of
an appeal.
1993);
See Hebert v. Exxon Corp., 953 F.2d 936, 938 (5th Cir.
NLRB v. Westphal, 859 F.2d 818, 819 (9th Cir. 1988);
Miami
Int’l Realty Co. v. Paynter, 807 F.2d 871, 873 (10th Cir. 1986).
Courts have traditionally restricted application of Rule 62 to
stays to appeals from money judgments only.
at 938.
See Hebert, 953 F.2d
Petitioner has not cited any case, nor is the Court aware
of any, in which a court has applied 62(b) in the context of a
judgment rendered in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Rule 62(b) is inapplicable,
and denies Petitioner’s motion pursuant thereto.
III. CONCLUSION
For
the
reasons
stated
above,
Petitioner’s
motion
(Dkt.
No. 23) is denied in its entirety.
Because Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing
of a denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the
Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. See, e.g.,
Lucidore v. New York State Div. of Parole, 209 F.3d 107, 111-113
(2d Cir. 2000).
The Court also hereby certifies, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this judgment would
-5-
not be taken in good faith and therefore denies leave to appeal as
a poor person.
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962).
Petitioner must file any notice of appeal with the Clerk’s
Office, United States District Court, Western District of New York,
within thirty (30) days of the date of judgment in this action.
Requests to proceed on appeal as a poor person must be filed with
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in accordance
with the requirements of Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Michael A. Telesca
HONORABLE MICHAEL A. TELESCA
United States District Judge
DATED:
April 4, 2013
Rochester, New York
-6-
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?