Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Holloway v. Isaacson

United States District Court, N.D. New York

January 29, 2014

OMAR HOLLOWAY, Plaintiff,
v.
PETER ISAACSON, Defendant.

OMAR HOLLOWAY, Joe L. Ivey, Jr., Albany, New York, Plaintiff pro se.

REHFUSS, LIGUORI & ASSOCIATES, P.C., JOHN W. LIGUORI, ESQ., Latham, New York, Attorneys for Defendant.

ORDER

FREDERICK J. SCULLIN, Jr., Senior District Judge.

The Court presided over the jury trial of this matter on October 9 and 10, 2012. At the end of the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant. See Dkt. No. 136. The Court entered judgment in this matter on October 10, 2012. See Dkt. No. 137. On October 29, 2012, the Court received and filed Plaintiff's motion "to overturn jury verdict in favor of Defendant; to rule in favor of pro se Plaintiff." See Dkt. No. 139. Defendant opposed that motion. See Dkt. No. 140.

On November 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal from this Court's judgment, see Dkt. No. 142, and a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, see Dkt. No. 143. In an Order dated November 15, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, certifying, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), "that any appeal from the judgment in this case would not be taken in good faith." See Dkt. No. 145 at 2. In a Memorandum-Decision and Order dated January 23, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion "to overturn jury verdict in favor of Defendant; to rule in favor of pro se Plaintiff." See Dkt. No. 147.[1]

In a Mandate issued on May 3, 2013, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied Plaintiff's motion for free trial transcripts because he had "not demonstrated that his appeal present[ed] any substantial questions' to justify free transcripts under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), " see Dkt. No. 149 at 1 (citations omitted), and dismissed Plaintiff's appeal because it lacked "an arguable basis in law or fact[, ]" see id. at 2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)) (other citation omitted).

On November 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the Court's November 15, 2012 Order, in which the Court had denied his motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See Dkt. No. 150. On January 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a second motion to vacate the Court's January 23, 2013 Memorandum-Decision and Order, in which the Court had denied his motion to overturn the jury's verdict in favor of Defendant and to rule in Plaintiff's favor. See Dkt. No. 152.[2]

As noted, the Second Circuit has already determined that Plaintiff's appeal from the October 10, 2012 judgment "lacked an arguable basis in law or fact." See Dkt. No. 149 at 2 (citations omitted). If Plaintiff disagreed with the Second Circuit's dismissal of his appeal, his recourse was to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, not to return to this Court and reargue his case. This Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain these motions.[3]

Accordingly, for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby

ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion to vacate the Court's order denying his motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, see Dkt. No. 150, is DENIED; and the Court further

ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion to vacate the Court's order denying his second motion "to overturn jury verdict in favor of Defendant [and] to rule in favor of... Plaintiff, " see Dkt. No. 152, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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