Grant v. Armstrong - Document 41
PRISCS - RULING AND ORDER denying 35 Motion to Reopen Case; denying 38 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting, nunc pro tunc, 39 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response as to 35 MOTION to Reopen Case until 3/9/09 (Responses due by 3/9/2009, ). Signed by Judge Peter C. Dorsey on 3/16/09. (Corriette, M.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT LEVERN GRANT, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER ARMSTRONG, Respondent. : : : : : : :
PRISONER CASE NO. 3:03CV573(PCD)
RULING AND ORDER The court dismissed this federal habeas action on the ground that the petition was time-barred. respondent on May 14, 2004. Judgment entered in favor of
Nearly five years later, petitioner In the motion,
has filed a fourth motion to reopen judgment.
however, he references the court's October 29, 2008 ruling denying his third motion to reopen rather than the May 2004 judgment. Accordingly, the court considers the motion as a The court
motion for reconsideration of the October 2008. concludes that the motion should be denied.
A motion for reconsideration must be filed and served within ten days from the date of filing of the decision from which reconsideration is sought. The motion must be accompanied by a
memorandum concisely stating the facts or controlling decisions the moving party believes the court overlooked. Conn. L. Civ. R. 29, 2008 ruling. Rule 7(c), D.
Petitioner seeks reconsideration of an October He had ten days, or until November 12, 2008, to Petitioner's motion is dated December Thus, any request for
file and serve his motion.
15, 2008, over one month too late.
reconsideration is untimely. In addition, even if the motion were timely, it should be denied. Motions for reconsideration will be denied unless the
moving party can identify controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked which would be expected to alter the court's conclusion. See Schrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 A motion for reconsideration may not be used to See SPGGC,
(2d Cir. 1995).
relitigate an issue the court already has decided.
Inc. v. Blumenthal, 408 F. Supp. 2d 87, 91 (D. Conn. 2006), aff'd in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 505 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2007). Petitioner identifies no controlling decisions. He merely
attempts to present new evidence to support his argument that the limitations period should be equitably tolled. Petitioner
submits a copy of the order denying certification and envelope from the Connecticut Supreme Court showing that the court mailed the notice of denial of certification to the incorrect address. He also provides a letter from his attorney showing that the attorney mailed notification to him on April 8, 2002, eleven days after the denial was filed. He also states, without evidence
that he did not receive the letter from his attorney until May 2002. Petitioner fails to show that he did not possess and could
not have discovered this information earlier had he exercised due
See Fidelity Partners, Inc. v. First Trust Co. of
New York, 58 F. Supp. 2d 55, 59 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (listing elements plaintiff must show for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence). Thus, the letters do not constitute newly discovered
evidence and do not warrant reconsideration of the prior ruling. Petitioner's fourth motion to reopen judgment [doc. #35], which the court construes as a motion for reconsideration of the denial of his third motion to reopen judgment, is DENIED. In
light of this determination, petitioner's motion for summary judgment [doc. #38] is DENIED as moot. Respondent's motion for The court
extension of time [doc. #39] is GRANTED nunc pro tunc.
concludes that no certificate of appealability should issue because jurists of reason would not disagree with the determination that the motion is untimely and should be denied. SO ORDERED this Connecticut. _____________ /s/ Peter C. Dorsey United States District Judge 16th day of March 2009, at New Haven,
The Court previously determined that the limitations period did not expire until March 24, 2003. See Doc. #14 at 5. Petitioner does not address why he was unable to submit a federal habeas petition before that date. 3