Rodriguez v. Sessions et al, No. 6:2018cv06757 - Document 24 (W.D.N.Y. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER denying 20 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 11/14/19. (JMC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
sion. Rather, he presents the same arguments that this Court has already considered and rejected. See Garcia v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 10-CV-246 (MAT), 2010 WL 1630412, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2010) (denying reconsideration where detained alien did not substantiate claim that he was entitled to relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) based on “new evidence”; petitioner “simply re-argu[ed] his status continued detention, and arguments that Court this in as doing has a removable so, already alien present[ed] twice and the considered his same and rejected”), aff’d, 422 F. App’x 7 (2d Cir. 2011). With regard to his new claim that his detention violates the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Rodriguez has not explained why he did not raise this -6- argument in his original petition. In any event, the argument is not one which would not “alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Garcia, 2010 WL 1630412, at *2 n.2. Because Rodriguez “has not been granted release on bond,” he “has no basis for arguing that the Government is asking him to pay an excessive amount of bail in order to be released from custody.” Mugiraneza v. Whitaker, No. 6:19-cv-06140-MAT, 2019 WL 2395316, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. June 6, 2019). Moreover, there is “little reason to believe that the Excessive Bail Clause might provide relief for mandatory detention that has become ‘unreasonably prolonged’ when the Due Process Clause does not.” Sankara v. Barr, No. 19-cv-174, 2019 WL 1922069, at *9 (Apr. 30, 2019). IV. Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, Rodriguez’s Reconsideration Motion is denied. SO ORDERED. S/Michael A. Telesca HON. MICHAEL A. TELESCA United States District Judge Dated: November 14, 2019 Rochester, New York. -7-
]]>
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.
