Bey v. Cribbs, No. 1:2009cv08416 - Document 20 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION denying re: 17 MOTION to Reopen Case, filed by Messiah Ali Bey. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 12/15/10) (cd)
Download PDF
Bey v. Cribbs Doc. 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x MESSIAH ALI BEY, 09 Civ. 8416 Petitioner, OPINION -against WARDEN BAILEY, Respondent. -----x Sweet, D.J. Petitioner Messiah Ali Bey (the "Petitioner" or "Bey") has moved "to restore the docket back to calendar and cause the Attorney General and the D.A. to comply to 28 U.S.C. 2254 R 5 (a) (b) (c) with an § appropriate answer and to by mot the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Treating the motion as low the § ioner 2254 R5 (e)." ther a motion for reconsideration the Court's April 15, 2010 Opinion denying Petitioner's motion for a writ habeas corpus (the "Opinion") [ pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3[ or as a mot from final judgment and for relief [ pursuant to Federal Civil Procedure 60(b) [ the mot of is denied. Dockets.Justia.com The operat facts of in the Court's prior Opinion. s action are recounted Familiarity with the Opinion is assumed. 1 on a motion for reconsideration under To Local 1 Rule 6.3, "'the moving party must demonstrate controlling law or factual matters put the underlying motion that fore the court on movant believes the court overlooked and that might reasonably be expected to alter the court's ision.,n 2004 WL 434038, at *2 Word v. Croce, No. 01 Civ. 9614, (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2004) (quoting Parrish v. Sollecito, 253 F. Supp. 2d 713, 715 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)) i see also Williams v. New York City Dep't of Corr., 219 F.R.D. 78, 83 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) i Borochoff v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, No. 07 Civ. 5574, 2008 WL 3466400, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2008) ("The major grounds justifying reconsideration are 'an intervening change law, the lability controlling new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. '" (quoting Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d .1992))). "Reconsideration of a court's previous order is an 'extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and 1 conservation of scarce judicial resources.'ff Montanile v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 216 F. Supp. 2d 341, 342 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (quoting In re Health . Inc. Sec. Lit ., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)). Under Rule 60(b), "[o]n motion and upon such from terms as are just, the court may relieve a party . a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; or (6) any reason justifying relief from ion of the judgment. ff instructed that Second Circuit 60 (b) . Fed. R. C is "extraordinary judici Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986) i see Nemaizer v. v. United 11 F. Supp. 2d 381 t 383 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) t Here, Petit of e 60(b) fff and can be granted "only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. ff States . P. seems to contend that the Office Attorney General's decision not to respond somehow ed Petitioner's due process rights. that the District At However t ts response was the Attorney General had no obI Petitioner's original He also contends ficient. ion to answer ition, and the Petitioner has led to demonstrate how the District Attorney's papers 2 were in any way insuff ient. Petitioner so seems to contend that he was denied discovery, but the record reflects that Respondent provided all known transcripts and responded to all reasonable discovery requests. Order, dated April 8, 2010.) See To the extent Petitioner seeks to present jurisdictional arguments that have been decided by the Court, these arguments fail. ready A motion for reconsideration may not be used to relitigate issues already decided by the Court. Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 See Shrader v. CSX (2d Cir. 1995). Petitioner has failed to show that the Court overlooked any controlling decisions or factual matters that were before it on the underlying habeas has therefore Rule 6.3. ition, and led to satisfy the standard of Local Civil Similarly, Petitioner has failed to present any evidence of any reason justifying relief from the Opinion. Accordingly, the motion is denied. It is so ordered. LイセM ï¼¬ï¼¯ï½®ï½ ï½¾ï¼­ï½² New York, NY December ! J, 2010 '-7 .. セM ') ROBERT W. SWEET U.S.D.J. 3