Miller v. Graham, No. 1:2010cv02174 - Document 21 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER denying [15-1] Motion for Relief From a Final Judgment: As instructed by the Second Circuit's March 5, 2012 Order, 19 , I have reviewed Miller's Rule 60(b) motion and determined it is without merit. Accordingly, I deny Miller's motion. A copy of this Order will be mailed to Miller. Ordered by Judge John Gleeson on 3/8/2012. (Gonen, Daniel)

Download PDF
Miller v. Graham Doc. 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------- X : QUASHON MILLER, : : Petitioner, : : - against : : HAROLD GRAHAM, : : Respondent. : ---------------------------------------------------------------- X NOT FOR PUBLICATION ORDER 10-CV-2174 (JG) JOHN GLEESON, United States District Judge: Miller seeks relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) & (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure from a final judgment, entered on December 8, 2010, denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Miller filed the instant motion on November 12, 2011. Assuming without deciding that the motion is timely, I deny it on the merits. Miller contends that my decision denying his petition was due to “plain error,” failure to apply the law and failure to consider all the facts. I previously rejected Miller’s claim that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel during his criminal trial, holding that he had not shown that his counsel’s purported failure to investigate a justification defense had prejudiced him. See Miller v. Graham, No. 10-CV-2174 (JG), 2010 WL 5056315, at *6–7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2010). I noted that Miller’s self-defense narrative had changed considerably over time and, thus, that Miller’s counsel “no doubt decided that a jury would be skeptical of” his story. Id. at *6. Although Miller points to his videotaped confession and other evidence he claims supports a justification defense, this does not alter the conclusion that his attorney’s strategic decision to forego a justification defense and recommend a guilty plea was reasonable. See id. at *7. Dockets.Justia.com In sum, Miller has not identified any “controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked . . . that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Accordingly, his motion is denied. So ordered. John Gleeson, U.S.D.J. Date: March 8, 2012 Brooklyn, New York 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.