Cooper v. Lapra
- Katherine Failla
- 1:18-cv-09405
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Cooper v. Lapra, Judge Failla denied Kazzim Cooper’s untimely motion to reconsider dismissal of his petition challenging his custody for failing to exhaust state remedies.
Kazzim Cooper’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and the earlier dismissal of his petition remained in effect.
What happened
In Cooper v. Lapra, Kazzim Cooper asked the court to reconsider its earlier dismissal of his petition. The earlier dismissal was based on his failure to complete available state remedies and on the court’s conclusion that the petition was not ready for review.
The court said Cooper filed his reconsideration motion about five months after the earlier decision, even though the court’s rule allowed 14 days. The court also found that he offered no new evidence, identified no change in controlling law, and repeated arguments that had already been rejected.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied Cooper’s motion for reconsideration. The order did not change the earlier dismissal, which had been entered without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Cooper v. Lapra · No. 1:18-cv-09405
- Katherine Failla
- Nov. 30, 2020
Background
Kazzim Cooper moved for reconsideration of the court’s June 17, 2020 decision. In that earlier decision, the court adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissed Cooper’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice. Habeas corpus is a procedure for challenging allegedly unlawful custody or detention. The earlier decision found that Cooper had not exhausted his state remedies and that his petition was not ripe for review.
Timeliness
Local Civil Rule 6.3 required Cooper to serve his reconsideration motion within 14 days after the court’s decision. Cooper’s motion was dated November 13, 2020, docketed November 25, 2020, and filed approximately five months after the June 17 decision. The court stated that Cooper did not dispute the delay and offered no justification for it. The court held that the untimeliness alone was sufficient reason to deny reconsideration.
Merits of Reconsideration
The court also ruled that the motion lacked merit. A motion for reconsideration is limited to situations such as an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The moving party must identify controlling decisions or information the court overlooked that could reasonably change its conclusion.
The court found that Cooper identified no new evidence or change in controlling law. He also did not address the earlier finding that he had failed to exhaust state remedies. Instead, he repeated arguments previously presented and rejected by the magistrate judge and the court.
Disposition
Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied Cooper’s motion for reconsideration. The order did not alter the earlier dismissal without prejudice of Cooper’s petition.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.