Washington v. Franklin Correctional Facility, No. 9:2019cv00695 - Document 76 (N.D.N.Y 2020)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 75 ) is DENIED. ORDERED that no Certificate of Appealability ("COA") shall issue because petitioner has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" as 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) requires. Signed by Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks on 8/28/2020. {order served via regular mail on petitioner}(nas)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Washington v. Franklin Correctional Facility Doc. 76 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MALCOLM WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. 9:19-CV-0695 (LEK/TWD) FRANKLIN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Respondent. APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: MALCOLM WASHINGTON Petitioner, pro se 16-B-2263 Franklin Correctional Facility P.O. Box 10 Malone, NY 12953 HON. LETITIA JAMES Attorney for Respondent New York State Attorney General The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 LISA E. FLEISCHMANN, ESQ. Ass't Attorney General THÉRÈSE WILEY DANCKS United States Magistrate Judge DECISION and ORDER Petitioner Malcolm Washington seeks federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. No. 10, Amended Petition (“Am. Pet.”). On August 14, 2020, this Court denied petitioner's second motion to expand the record. Dkt. No. 71, Decision and Order ("August Order"). In response to the August Order, petitioner filed the pending motion for reconsideration. Dkt. No. 75. In it, petitioner reasserts his conclusory arguments from his Dockets.Justia.com discovery motion. Id. at 1. Specifically, petitioner emphasizes that he "disagree[s]" with the Court and that he has "submitted documented proof of all accusations [and] . . . show[n] a number of illegalities and attempted cover-ups." Id. "The standard for . . . [reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked . . . that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Reconsideration is warranted only where controlling law has changed, new evidence is available, clear error must be corrected, or manifest injustice prevented. Long v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 778 F. Supp. 2d 222, 228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing Doe v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servcs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1983)); Jackson v. Jimino, 506 F. Supp. 2d 105, 108-09 (N.D.N.Y. 2007). Petitioner has not provided any reason which justifies reconsideration of the Court’s prior order. Instead he reasserts the same arguments from his discovery motion and argues that the Court’s analysis is incorrect. Petitioner has not demonstrated that any controlling decisions or material facts were overlooked that might have influenced the Court's prior Order. Nor has he shown that any clear error of law must be corrected, or manifest injustice prevented. Petitioner's disagreement with this Court's decision is not a basis for reconsideration. Finkelstein v. Mardkha, 518 F. Supp. 2d 609, 611 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). As a result, reconsideration of the Court's decision is not warranted. WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED that petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 75) is DENIED; and it 2 is further ORDERED that no Certificate of Appealability ("COA") shall issue because petitioner has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" as 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) requires; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on petitioner in accordance with the Local Rules. Dated: August 28, 2020 Syracuse, New York 3
]]>
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.
