Aceituno v. Harrison Police Dept.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-08395
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Aceituno v. Harrison Police Dept., Judge Woods denied reconsideration and denied fee-free appeal status after finding no basis to change the case’s transfer or jurisdiction ruling.
Dario Aceituno’s request for reconsideration was denied, leaving the earlier transfer and jurisdiction ruling in place; fee-free status for an appeal was also denied.
What happened
Aceituno v. Harrison Police Dept. involved Dario Aceituno’s request to reconsider an earlier order that rejected his challenge to his removal order and transferred the petition to a federal court in Alabama.
The court said Aceituno identified no change in controlling law or new evidence. It ruled that his petition was filed when he gave it to prison officials in New Jersey, not when it later reached New York, and that federal district courts cannot review final removal orders under the federal immigration law known as the REAL ID Act.
Judge Woods denied the motion for reconsideration. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the clerk to close the pending motion and mail the order to Aceituno.
The detailed version
- Aceituno v. Harrison Police Dept. · No. 1:19-cv-08395
- Gregory Woods
- Dec. 3, 2019
Background
Dario Aceituno, representing himself, moved for reconsideration of the court’s earlier order denying his challenge to his removal order and transferring the petition to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The reconsideration motion was governed by Local Rule 6.3, which requires the moving party to identify matters or controlling decisions the court overlooked.
Analysis
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only for an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. Even construing Aceituno’s filing liberally because he was representing himself, the court found no legal basis to reconsider its decision.
On venue, Aceituno argued that the petition should be treated as filed in New York because he was transferred to a federal building there on the day it was mailed. The court applied the “prison mailbox” rule, under which a self-represented prisoner’s filing is considered submitted when delivered to prison officials. The court stated that Aceituno gave the petition to officials in New Jersey and that postal tracking showed it was collected from a regional facility in Kearny, New Jersey, before moving to New York.
On subject-matter jurisdiction, the court held that Aceituno’s challenges concerned the validity of his final removal order. It stated that federal appeals courts have exclusive jurisdiction to review final orders of removal, deportation, and exclusion, and that the REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252, prevents district courts from deciding those challenges. The court also stated that any request to transfer the case to the Western District of Louisiana should be made to the judge handling the case in the Northern District of Alabama.
Disposition
The court denied Aceituno’s motion for reconsideration. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied fee-free status for an appeal. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. No. 10 and mail Aceituno a copy of the order by certified and regular first-class mail.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.