Luis v. Griffin
- P. Castel
- 1:16-cv-03839
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Luis v. Griffin, Judge Castel denied Luis C. Paulino’s request to reopen his habeas judgment, finding no mistake in the earlier ruling.
Luis C. Paulino, who represented himself, was denied relief from the prior judgment denying his habeas petition. The order also addressed the effect of his simultaneously filed notice of appeal.
What happened
In Luis C. Paulino v. Thomas Griffin, Paulino asked the court to reopen its judgment denying his petition challenging aspects of his conviction. He represented himself.
Paulino argued that the court had not read his filings generously or considered his strongest constitutional arguments. The court retained authority to decide the request because it treated the motion as timely and Paulino had filed his appeal notice at the same time.
Judge Castel found that the court had properly considered Paulino’s filings and lack of legal training. The court denied Paulino’s request for relief under Rule 60(b), a rule allowing a court to provide relief from a judgment for specified reasons such as mistake or excusable neglect.
The detailed version
- Luis v. Griffin · No. 1:16-cv-03839
- P. Castel
- Aug. 18, 2020
Background
Luis C. Paulino filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging several aspects of his conviction in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County. The court had referred the petition to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses, who recommended denying it. After considering Paulino’s objections, the district court adopted the recommendation in full, and judgment was entered.
Paulino then filed a motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking relief from that judgment. Rule 60(b) permits relief from a judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. He also filed a notice of appeal; both documents were dated April 27, 2020 and docketed on May 14, 2020.
Jurisdiction over the Rule 60(b) motion
The court held that it retained jurisdiction to decide the Rule 60(b) motion. It explained that when a party files a timely Rule 60(b) motion within 28 days after judgment and files a notice of appeal before the district court resolves that motion, the notice of appeal does not become effective until the motion is decided. The court presumed Paulino’s motion timely because it was dated within the 28-day period, even though the court received it later. The notice of appeal had been signed and submitted on the same day as the motion.
Paulino’s argument and the ruling
Paulino argued that, when adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the court had failed to read his submissions liberally and had failed to consider the strongest constitutional arguments available to a person representing himself.
The court rejected that argument. It found that, in reviewing and adopting the recommendation, it had read Paulino’s submissions liberally and had appropriately considered that his substantive arguments were not being presented by a trained lawyer. The court therefore found no mistake or inadvertence in its April 6, 2020 opinion and order.
Disposition
The court denied Paulino’s Rule 60(b) motion. The opinion does not state a disposition of the notice of appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.