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 reconsideration and reassignment requests concerning Cooper’s previously denied habeas petition.
Kazzim Cooper’s requests for reconsideration and reassignment were denied; the order also directed the Clerk of Court to mail him a copy.
What happened
Kazzim Cooper asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of his habeas petition, which had been denied because he had not first pursued available state-court remedies. The court treated Cooper’s October 13, 2021 letter as requesting both reconsideration and reassignment to a different judge.
The court said Cooper’s letter repeated arguments from an earlier reconsideration motion. It denied reconsideration because the earlier motion was late and presented no new evidence or change in controlling law. Cooper also alleged that the court and Magistrate Judge Wang had conspired with New York State Attorney General Matthew Keller, but he provided no basis for reassignment.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied both the request for reconsideration and, to the extent Cooper sought it, the request to reassign the case. The court explained that Cooper was representing himself and had not shown the bias or prejudice required for the judge’s disqualification.
The detailed version
- Cooper v. Lapra · No. 1:18-cv-09405
- Katherine Failla
- Nov. 4, 2021
Background
Kazzim Cooper sent a letter dated October 13, 2021, addressed to Judge Preska, disputing the court’s handling of his petition for habeas relief. A habeas petition asks a court to review the legality of a person’s custody or detention. The court understood the letter as seeking reassignment of the case so Cooper could obtain relief from the court’s June 17, 2020 order denying his petition for failure to exhaust state-court remedies.
Reconsideration request
The court noted that Cooper’s letter repeated arguments from a motion for reconsideration filed on November 25, 2020. The court had denied that earlier motion on November 30, 2020, because it was untimely under Local Rule 6.3 and did not identify new evidence or a change in controlling law that would justify reconsideration. The court reiterated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to repeat arguments that the court previously rejected. It therefore denied Cooper’s request for reconsideration.
Request for reassignment or recusal
To the extent Cooper sought reassignment, the court treated the request as one for the judge’s recusal, meaning disqualification from the case. The court stated that Cooper, who was proceeding without a lawyer, could not file an application under 28 U.S.C. § 144 because that provision requires a certificate of good faith from counsel of record. The court also explained that Cooper had not identified affirmative bias or prejudice that would require disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).
Cooper asserted that the court and Magistrate Judge Wang had conspired with New York State Attorney General Matthew Keller to obstruct enforcement of the Thirteenth Amendment. The court concluded that this assertion did not meet the standard for recusal and denied the request for reassignment. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Cooper a copy of the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.