Ward v. Piccolo
- Andrew Krause
- 7:20-cv-01899
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Ward v. Piccolo, Judge Krause denied Ward’s request to reconsider the refusal to release him while his petition challenging detention was pending.
J’Min A. Ward, who sought reconsideration of the denial of bail while his petition was pending; P. Piccolo, Superintendent, was the respondent opposing the motion.
What happened
In Ward v. Piccolo, J’Min A. Ward, who was proceeding without a lawyer, asked the court to reconsider its earlier refusal to release him on bail while his petition challenging his detention was pending.
Ward argued that the court had overlooked a controlling Second Circuit decision, Vacchio v. Ashcroft. The court explained that Vacchio concerned attorney fees in an immigration-detention case and did not change the standard for bail in Ward’s case. That standard requires a petitioner to show both substantial claims and extraordinary circumstances.
Judge Krause ruled that Ward had not shown a legal or factual error, new evidence, or extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration. The court therefore denied Ward’s motion for reconsideration.
The detailed version
- Ward v. Piccolo · No. 7:20-cv-01899
- Andrew Krause
- May 25, 2022
Background
J’Min A. Ward filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which permits a person in state custody to ask a federal court to review the legality of that custody. Ward proceeded without a lawyer. Before this order, the court denied Ward’s motion for release on bail while the petition was pending.
Ward then moved for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3. The respondent opposed the motion, arguing that Ward presented no new arguments and had not shown that the court misunderstood the facts or applicable law.
Legal standard
The court stated that reconsideration is available only in extraordinary circumstances. A person seeking reconsideration must identify controlling decisions or information the court overlooked that could reasonably change its conclusion. Reconsideration may also be appropriate based on an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or the need to prevent serious injustice.
For bail during a federal detention challenge, the court relied on the Second Circuit’s standard in Mapp v. Reno. Under that standard, the petitioner must show both substantial claims and extraordinary circumstances making bail necessary for the requested remedy to be effective.
Ward’s argument and the court’s analysis
Ward argued that the court had overlooked Vacchio v. Ashcroft. The court explained that Vacchio involved attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act in a case challenging immigration detention. Although Vacchio’s factual background included a prior grant of bail, the Second Circuit discussed that fact in deciding who qualifies as a prevailing party for fee purposes.
The court concluded that Vacchio did not undermine or contradict Mapp’s standard for bail in a criminal detention challenge. The court also noted that Vacchio itself cited Mapp as the appropriate standard for deciding whether bail should be granted. Ward presented no new evidence or argument that changed the court’s conclusion that he had not shown extraordinary circumstances. The court further found that the facts supporting bail in Vacchio were not comparable to the facts presented by Ward.
Disposition
Judge Andrew E. Krause denied Ward’s motion for reconsideration. The order did not decide whether Ward’s underlying petition raised substantial claims; it addressed only whether the earlier denial of bail should be reconsidered. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the reconsideration motion.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.