Patel v. Rockwood
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:21-cv-01501
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Patel v. Rockwood, Judge McMahon denied Patel’s reconsideration motion, leaving his habeas petition denied for lack of jurisdiction and as time-barred.
Amit Patel, the incarcerated petitioner who filed without a lawyer, is directly affected because the court denied his reconsideration motion and left the earlier denial of his § 2254 petition in place. Mark Rockwood is the named respondent. The court also limited future filings by Patel under this docket number, except filings directed to the Second Circuit.
What happened
In Patel v. Rockwood, Amit Patel asked the court to reconsider its denial of his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court had previously ruled that it lacked jurisdiction and that the petition was filed too late, then gave Patel 30 days to respond. After reviewing his response, the court again denied the petition on those grounds.
Patel later filed a motion for reconsideration and a notice of appeal. The court found that the reconsideration motion was timely because Patel, who was incarcerated, submitted it to the prison mail system before the deadline. That allowed the court to decide the motion even though he had filed a notice of appeal. Patel submitted documents supporting his arguments about timeliness and extending the filing deadline, but he had not submitted those documents earlier.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied the reconsideration motion. She ruled that Patel had not shown that the court overlooked a controlling legal decision or factual information previously presented. The court terminated the motion and directed the Clerk of Court not to accept further submissions from Patel under this docket number, except papers directed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The detailed version
- Patel v. Rockwood · No. 1:21-cv-01501
- Colleen McMahon
- June 23, 2021
Background
Amit Patel, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In an April 1, 2021 order, the court denied the petition because it concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and that the petition was time-barred, while allowing Patel 30 days to submit a response addressing those issues. After receiving Patel’s declaration, the court entered an order and judgment on April 28, 2021, again denying the petition for lack of jurisdiction and as time-barred.
Patel then filed a motion for reconsideration and a notice of appeal. The Second Circuit stayed the appeal while the district court considered the reconsideration motion. The district court treated the motion as one to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and as a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3.
Jurisdiction to Consider the Motion
The court concluded that it had authority to decide the reconsideration motion. A Rule 59(e) motion generally must be filed within 28 days after judgment. The judgment was entered on April 29, 2021, making May 27 the deadline. Patel signed the motion on May 10, and the envelope was postmarked May 20. Applying the prison-mailbox rule, the court treated the motion as submitted on time because Patel had given it to the prison mail system before the deadline.
Because the motion was timely and Patel filed his notice of appeal before the district court decided the motion, the notice of appeal had not yet become effective for purposes of transferring authority over the challenged judgment to the Court of Appeals. The district court therefore retained jurisdiction to rule on the motion.
Reconsideration Standard and Ruling
The court explained that Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3 require the moving party to show that the court overlooked a controlling legal decision or factual matter that had already been presented. A reconsideration motion is not an opportunity to raise new theories or submit new evidence in response to the court’s decision.
Patel submitted numerous documents in his 256-page motion to support his arguments that the petition was timely or that the filing deadline should be extended for fairness reasons. The court noted that Patel had not submitted those documents with his petition or in response to the April 1 order. The court also stated that, even if Patel could show that the petition was timely or that the filing deadline should be extended, he had not shown that the court was wrong to conclude that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied Patel’s motion under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and to accept no further submissions from Patel under this docket number, except papers directed to the Second Circuit.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.