Williams v. Artuz, No. 1:2000cv01761 - Document 24 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied as untimely. Ordered by Judge Allyne R. Ross on 6/3/2013. C/M. (Siegfried, Evan)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------- )( VINCENT WILLIAMS, 00-cv-1761 (ARR) Petitioner, NOT FOR ELECTRONIC OR PRINT PUBLICATION -againstOPINION AND ORDER CHRISTOPHER ARTUZ, Superintendent, Respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------- )( ROSS, United States District Judge: On May 30, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, Dkt. #23, of this court's September 7, 2000 order, Dkt. #II, denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S. C. ยง 2254. Invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) and (3), Petitioner asserts that his motion is based on "newly discovered evidence" and "fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct by the respondent." Dkt. #23, at I; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), (3). "Rule 60(b) specifically provides that a motion for relief from judgment may be made for reasons (I), (2), and (3) not more than one year after the judgment ... was entered. This limitations period is absolute .... " Warren v. Garvin, 219 F.3d Ill, 114 (2d Cir. 2000)(internal citation and quotation marks omitted) (first alteration in original). Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was filed more than a decade after judgment was entered in his case on September 18, 2000, Dkt. # 12. ; Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is therefore denied as SO ORDERED. s/ ARR Dated: June 3, 2013 Brooklyn, New York 2 unti~
]]>
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.
