Carbone v. Cunningham, No. 1:2006cv05710 - Document 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court has received a Rule 60(b) motion. The respondent should respond to this motion by January 30, 2012. The petitioner should reply by February 20, 2012. In their papers, the parties should address whether the Rul e 60(b) motion should be considered on the merits or instead treated as a second or successive habeas petition and as further set forth in this order. ( Responses due by 1/30/2012. Replies due by 2/20/2012.) (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 12/22/2011) (lmb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FRANK CARBONE, A/K/A STEVE ASCANIO, 06 Civ. 5710 (JGK) Petitioner, - against - MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RAYMOND J. CUNNINGHAM, Respondent. JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge: The Court has received a Rule 60(b) motion. should respond to this motion by January 30, 2012. The respondent The petitioner should reply by February 20, 2012. In their papers, the parties should address whether the Rule 60(b) motion should be considered on the merits or instead treated as a second or successive habeas petition. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 538 (2005) ( We hold that a Rule 60(b)(6) motion in a ยง 2254 case is not to be treated as a successive habeas petition if it does not assert, or reassert, claims of error in the movant s state conviction. ); Harris v. United States, 367 F.3d 74, 77 (2d Cir. 2004) ( [R]elief under Rule 60(b) is available for a previous habeas proceeding only when the Rule 60(b) motion attacks the integrity of the previous habeas proceeding rather than the underlying criminal conviction. ). The parties should also address whether, if the Court concludes that any portion of the Rule 60(b) motion should be construed as attacking the underlying criminal conviction, the best course of action is for the Court to transfer the motion to the Court of Appeals as a second or successive habeas petition after providing notice to that effect to the petitioner, or instead to consider the motion on the merits, denying as beyond the scope of Rule 60(b) any portions of the motion which attack the underlying criminal conviction. See, e.g., Gitten v. united States, 311 F.3d 529, 534 (2d Cir. 2002) i Harris, 367 F.3d at 82; Peace v. United States, No. 05 Civ. 1854, 2011 WL 2471067, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2011). SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York December 22, 2011 States District Judge 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.
