Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Taylor v. Artus

May 29, 2008

ASFIA TAYLOR, PETITIONER,
v.
DALE ARTUS, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Scullin, Senior Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner commenced this proceeding by filing a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction in Onondaga County Court for drug possession. See Dkt. No. 1. In an Amended Report and Recommendation dated October 9, 2007, Magistrate Judge Peebles recommended that this Court deny and dismiss the petition. See Dkt. No. 43. Petitioner subsequently requested, and this Court granted, an extension of time until November 30, 2007, to object to the Report and Recommendation. See Dkt. No. 48. Thereafter, Petitioner requested "transfer to a facility in New York state with an adequate law library"*fn1 or, in the alternative, appointment of counsel. See Dkt. No. 49. By Order dated November 8, 2007, the Court denied Petitioner's requests. See id.

Currently before the Court is Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of this Court's November 8, 2007 Order. See Dkt. No. 51. Petitioner also requests that the Court stay his removal pending resolution of this proceeding. See id.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Reconsideration

"A court may justifiably reconsider its previous ruling if: (1) there is an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) new evidence not previously available comes to light; or (3) it becomes necessary to remedy a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice." Delaney v. Selsky, 899 F. Supp. 923, 925 (N.D.N.Y. 1995) (citing Doe v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 864, 104 S.Ct. 195, 78 L.Ed. 2d 171 (1983)).

The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is strict. See Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). "A motion for reconsideration may not be used to advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the Court, nor may it 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 v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)). In other words, "[a] motion for reconsideration is not to be used as a means to reargue matters already argued and disposed of by prior rulings or to put forward additional arguments that a party could have made but neglected to make before judgment." Brown v. Middaugh, No. 96-CV-1097, 1999 WL 242662, *1 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 1999) (citation omitted).

Petitioner has not indicated upon which justification he bases his motion for reconsideration. However, because Petitioner rehashes his previous arguments and does not suggest either that there has been an intervening change in the controlling law or that he has discovered new evidence, the Court assumes that Petitioner seeks to argue that reconsideration is necessary to remedy a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. Based upon the Court's review of the relevant law and its application to the facts of this case, the Court concludes that its previous decision was legally correct and did not work a manifest injustice on Petitioner.

Moreover, because Petitioner's time to object to the Report and Recommendation expired on November 30, 2007, his request for appointment of counsel to aid in preparing objections is moot. Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

B. Request for Stay of Removal

Petitioner also asks the Court to stay his removal from the United States pending resolution of this habeas proceeding. See Dkt. No. 51 at 2-9. On May 11, 2005, Congress enacted the Real ID Act (the "Act"), which became effective that same day. See Real ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, § 106(b), 119 Stat. 231 (2005). Section 106 of the Act amended 8 U.S.C. § 1252 by adding the following jurisdictional provision:

(5) Exclusive means of review

Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or non-statutory), including section 2241 of Title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section shall be the sole and exclusive means of judicial ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.