Mayo v. Walker
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-05810
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Mayo v. Walker, Judge Swain denied Mayo’s motion to alter or amend or reconsider the judgment denying his habeas claims.
Maurice Mayo, who represented himself, and the closed habeas action concerning his claims; the order also governs what further filings the clerk will accept in this action.
What happened
In Mayo v. Walker, Maurice Mayo challenged the court’s earlier judgment concerning his requests for habeas relief. The court had denied claims he raised for other people without prejudice and denied as moot the claims he raised for himself concerning earlier state pretrial detention.
Mayo’s later filings appeared to challenge his current incarceration after a state conviction. Because Mayo was representing himself, the court treated those filings as one request to change or reconsider the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and a local reconsideration rule.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion because Mayo did not show that the court had overlooked controlling legal decisions or important facts. The action remains closed; no certificate allowing an appeal will issue, and the court denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Mayo v. Walker · No. 1:22-cv-05810
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 25, 2022
Background
Maurice Mayo filed habeas claims while representing himself. In an earlier order and judgment, the court denied without prejudice the claims he asserted on behalf of other people. The court treated Mayo’s own claims—although filed under the statute generally used to challenge a state conviction—as claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking relief from his earlier state pretrial detention, and denied that relief as moot.
After that judgment, Mayo submitted several filings that appeared to challenge the basis for his current incarceration following his conviction in New York Supreme Court, Richmond County. The court also noted that Mayo had filed a separate petition challenging that conviction and had transferred that separate action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Motion and Standard
Because Mayo was proceeding without a lawyer, the court construed his post-judgment filings as one motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3. These rules require a party to show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters that had already been presented. The court explained that such motions are narrowly applied and cannot be used simply to repeat arguments, introduce new theories, or present new evidence after the ruling.
Ruling
The court found that Mayo had not shown that it overlooked any controlling decisions or factual matters concerning its denial of habeas relief. It therefore denied Mayo’s motion under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3.
The court stated that the action was closed and that the clerk would accept only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It warned that further frivolous or meritless filings could lead to an order requiring Mayo to explain why he should not be barred from filing additional documents in this action. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability because the filings did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, and it denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.