UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
January 3, 2008
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
HOWARD THOMAS PORTER, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Charles P. Sifton (electronically signed) United States District Judge
Having considered Howard Thomas Porter's pro se motion for reconsideration of the undersigned's November 13, 2007 Memorandum Opinion & Order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion, Porter's motion for reconsideration is denied.
As discussed in the November 13, 2007 Memorandum Opinion & Order, Porter has failed to state a valid Rule 60(b)(6) claim. Rule 60(b)(6) only applies to civil judgments and is not a procedural vehicle available to defendants seeking direct relief from criminal convictions. Porter's reliance on Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005), and Materese v. Lefevre, 801 F.2d 98 (2d Cir. 1986), in support of his motion for reconsideration is misplaced, because the defendants in those cases filed Rule 60(b) motions seeking relief from judgments in habeas corpus proceedings, which are civil in nature.*fn1 Because Porter does not have an underlying writ of habeas corpus petition that has already been adjudicated by the Court, he does not have a legal basis for filing a Rule 60(b)(6) motion at this time. Accordingly, Porter's motion for reconsideration of his Rule 60(b)(6) motion is denied.
The clerk is directed to transmit a filed copy of the within to the parties and the magistrate judge.