Bowie v. Lee
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:13-cv-07317
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Bowie v. Lee, Judge Karas denied Bowie’s motion to reconsider the earlier denial of his petition challenging his custody.
Patrick Bowie’s motion was denied. William Lee is identified as the superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility and the respondent.
What happened
In Bowie v. Lee, Patrick Bowie asked the court to reconsider its earlier order denying his petition challenging his custody. That earlier order had adopted a recommendation by Judge Davison.
The court explained that reconsideration is available only for a controlling legal change, new evidence, or a clear error or serious injustice. The court found that Bowie’s motion repeated arguments he had already made, including his claim that Marlon Avila was a key prosecution witness and that not calling Avila violated Bowie’s confrontation rights. The court had previously determined that no statement from Avila was used to authenticate the jailhouse letters admitted at trial.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied the motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to close the pending motion and mail Bowie a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Bowie v. Lee · No. 7:13-cv-07317
- Kenneth Karas
- Feb. 16, 2022
Background
Patrick Bowie filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its December 28, 2021 order. That earlier order adopted Judge Davison’s report and recommendation and denied Bowie’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court petition challenging the legality of a person’s custody.
Legal standard
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3. It described reconsideration as an exceptional remedy intended to promote finality and prevent a losing party from repeating or expanding arguments after losing. A party seeking reconsideration must identify an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error or serious injustice. The motion cannot be used simply to reargue an issue already decided or to submit material that could previously have been presented.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that Bowie did not meet this strict standard. It found that his motion repeated arguments previously presented to Judge Davison and to the court when it adopted the report and recommendation.
One repeated argument concerned Marlon Avila. Bowie argued that Avila was the prosecution’s “Chief Witness” and that the prosecution’s failure to call Avila at trial violated Bowie’s rights under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. The court rejected the argument, explaining that the jailhouse letters exchanged between Bowie and Melvin Green were not authenticated through a statement by Avila and that no other statement by Avila was admitted at trial. The court therefore stated that Bowie’s confrontation rights were not implicated as to Avila, much less violated.
Disposition
Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied Bowie’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion and mail a copy of the order to Bowie.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.