Diaz v. Kuhlman
- Analisa Torres
- 1:99-cv-01085-AT-RWL
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Diaz v. Kuhlman, Judge Torres dismissed Angel Diaz’s Rule 60 motion challenging his old habeas judgment and denied his requests for a hearing and pause.
Angel Diaz, who represented himself, did not obtain relief from the 2001 judgment and could not proceed with his Rule 60 motion, evidentiary-hearing request, or request to pause the matter.
What happened
In Diaz v. Kuhlman, Angel Diaz filed a petition seeking relief from custody in 1998. The court denied that petition in 2001, and two appeals were unsuccessful. In 2022, Diaz asked the court to provide relief from the final judgment.
Diaz argued that he had accidentally left four issues from his direct appeal out of his original petition. The court said he had raised that argument too late and that the record showed more than a simple clerical mistake. The court also found that his other objections were general or repeated arguments he had already made.
The court overruled Diaz’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations, and dismissed Diaz’s motion. It also denied his requests for an evidentiary hearing and to pause the case while he pursued a state-court motion. Judge Analisa Torres issued the order.
The detailed version
- Diaz v. Kuhlman · No. 1:99-cv-01085-AT-RWL
- Analisa Torres
- Dec. 28, 2022
Background
In December 1998, Angel Diaz, representing himself, filed a petition for habeas corpus. Judge Deborah A. Batts denied the petition on April 13, 2001, and judgment was entered on April 16, 2001. After two unsuccessful appeals, Diaz moved in June 2022 for relief from the final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.
The court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger. Judge Lehrburger issued a Report and Recommendation, followed by an amended version addressing an additional submission from Diaz. Both recommendations concluded that Diaz’s motion should be denied. Diaz filed objections to both recommendations.
Issues and analysis
Diaz argued that the recommendations incorrectly concluded that his motion should be denied because he had not included issues from his direct appeal as grounds for his original habeas petition. He said the omission resulted from a clerical error.
The court declined to consider that argument because Diaz had not presented it to the magistrate judge and could have done so earlier. The court also considered the argument independently and rejected it. It found that Diaz had omitted all four direct-appeal issues, crossed out sections of the petition where additional grounds could be listed, and did not raise concerns about the omission after receiving the opposing submission or when objecting to an earlier recommendation. The court concluded that these circumstances did not show a clerical error or the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60.
The court treated Diaz’s remaining objections as conclusory, general, or repetitive of his earlier arguments. It reviewed the remainder of the recommendations for clear error and found none. Under that review, the court examined whether the recommendations contained an obvious mistake and concluded that they did not.
Ruling
Judge Analisa Torres overruled Diaz’s objections to the Report and Recommendation and amended Report and Recommendation, adopted their conclusions, and dismissed Diaz’s Rule 60 motion. The court also denied Diaz’s request for an evidentiary hearing and his request to hold the matter in abeyance while he pursued a motion under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 in state court. The order did not grant relief from the 2001 judgment.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.