Tineo-Santos v. Piccolo
- Vyskocil
- 1:19-cv-05038
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Tineo-Santos v. Piccolo, Judge Vyskocil denied reconsideration extensions, partly granted the records request, and denied Rule 59/60 extensions without prejudice.
Francisco Tineo-Santos, whose requests for extensions and case records were addressed, and the Clerk of Court, who was directed to provide the requested records and send him the order.
What happened
In Tineo-Santos v. Piccolo, Francisco Tineo-Santos asked the court for more time to seek reconsideration, copies of case documents, and more time to challenge the September 14, 2022 judgment. He filed the requests while his appeal of that judgment was pending.
The court denied more time to seek reconsideration of the decision refusing permission to amend his petition because the request was nearly two years late and an earlier reconsideration request had already been denied. The court granted in part his request for copies and directed the Clerk to provide the requested records under standard practices. It denied without prejudice his requests for more time to file motions under Rules 59 and 60 because those requests concerned the order being appealed.
Judge Vyskocil issued the order on December 5, 2022. The order did not decide the pending appeal or revisit the denial of the petition; it ruled only on Tineo-Santos’s requests for extensions and documents.
The detailed version
- Tineo-Santos v. Piccolo · No. 1:19-cv-05038
- Vyskocil
- Dec. 5, 2022
Background
The court had previously adopted Magistrate Judge James Cott’s August 13, 2021 order. That earlier order recommended denying Tineo-Santos’s petition seeking habeas relief, meaning relief from allegedly unlawful custody or detention, and denied reconsideration of an earlier decision refusing permission to amend the petition. Tineo-Santos appealed the district court’s September 14, 2022 order adopting that earlier recommendation.
While the appeal was pending, Tineo-Santos filed a pro se letter requesting three forms of relief: (1) more time to file a motion for reconsideration concerning the request to amend his petition; (2) an order directing the Clerk to provide certified copies of all documents entered in the case; and (3) more time to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 or Rule 60 concerning the September 14 judgment.
Rulings
The court explained that filing a notice of appeal gives the appeals court control over the issues involved in the appeal. It determined that the request concerning reconsideration of the amendment decision was not part of the pending appeal and therefore could be considered. The court denied that request because the amendment decision was nearly two years old, an earlier reconsideration motion had already been denied, and the proposed request was untimely under both Rule 59 and Rule 60.
The court granted in part the request for copies of case documents. It directed the Clerk to provide the requested records in accordance with standard practices, while noting that the Clerk may already have done so.
The court denied without prejudice the requests for more time to file Rule 59 and Rule 60 motions. Those requests concerned the September 14 order that was being appealed, so the district court would not decide them while the appeal was pending. The Clerk was also asked to send Tineo-Santos a copy of the order at the address of record.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.