Miller v. Superintendent of the Shawangunk Correctional Facility, No. 1:2018cv01762 - Document 46 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: re: 41 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 37 Clerk's Judgment filed by Devon Miller. Accordingly, the Court hereby dismisses Miller's motion for reconsideration for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. 41. The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this memorandum opinion and order to Petitioner Miller. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 10/26/2020) (ama) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Miller v. Superintendent of the Shawangunk Correctional Facility Doc. 46 Case 1:18-cv-01762-RA Document 46 Filed 10/26/20 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DEVON MILLER, USDC-SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC#: DATE FILED: Petitioner, 18-CV-1762 (RA) v. SUPERINTENDENT OF THE SHAWANGUNK CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, MEMORANDUM OPINION& ORDER Respondent. RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge: On July 31, 2020, this Court denied Petitioner Devon Miller’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding that the state court’s decision below was neither “contrary to, [n]or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,” nor was it “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” Opinion and Order, Dkt. 36 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)). On August 27, 2020, Miller filed a notice of appeal, appealing this Court’s ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Dkt. 40. On September 1, 2020, Miller filed a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) in this Court. Dkt. 41. A federal district court and a federal appellate court may not maintain simultaneous jurisdiction over a case. As the Supreme Court held in Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982), “[t]he filing of a notice of appeal . . . confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Id. at 58. Although a district court may retain jurisdiction over a motion for reconsideration that is filed before a notice of appeal, see Lowrance v. Achtyl, 20 F.3d 529, 533 (2d Cir. 1994) (citing Fed. R. App. p. 4(a)(4)); see also In re Fund for Prot. of Inv’r Rights in Foreign States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, 19-mc-401 (AT), Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:18-cv-01762-RA Document 46 Filed 10/26/20 Page 2 of 2 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153808, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2020), here, where the motion for reconsideration was filed four days after the notice of appeal, that rule does not apply. Accordingly, the Court hereby dismisses Miller’s motion for reconsideration for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. 41. The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this memorandum opinion and order to Petitioner Miller. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 26, 2020 New York, New York RONNIE ABRAMS United 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.
