Diaz v. Kuhlman
- Analisa Torres
- 1:99-cv-01085-AT-RWL
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Diaz v. Bennett, Judge Torres denied Angel Diaz’s request to reconsider an earlier order, finding no overlooked law or genuinely new evidence.
Angel Diaz’s request to revisit the court’s December 28, 2022 order was denied; the opinion does not alter the underlying habeas ruling.
What happened
Angel Diaz, representing himself, asked the court to reconsider its December 28, 2022 order in his case against Stacie Bennett. That earlier order adopted recommendations from Judge Robert W. Lehrburger.
Diaz argued that the court had overlooked legal and factual matters. He also pointed to his claimed low IQ, errors by a legal assistant who helped prepare his habeas petition, and a reading-comprehension examination.
Judge Analisa Torres denied reconsideration. She found that Diaz was repeating earlier arguments, had not identified a change in controlling law, and had not provided genuinely new evidence.
The detailed version
- Diaz v. Kuhlman · No. 1:99-cv-01085-AT-RWL
- Analisa Torres
- Jan. 30, 2023
Background
Angel Diaz, proceeding without a lawyer, moved for reconsideration of the court’s December 28, 2022 order. That order adopted Judge Robert W. Lehrburger’s report and recommendation and amended report and recommendation. The opinion does not restate the underlying habeas claims or the December 28 order’s ultimate disposition.
Diaz’s arguments
Diaz argued that the court had mistakenly overlooked controlling law and facts in his objections to Judge Lehrburger’s recommendations. He also argued that his low IQ and errors attributed to an inadequate legal assistant who drafted his habeas petition were exceptional circumstances supporting relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.
Diaz submitted an exhibit that appears to reflect the results of a reading-comprehension examination. The examination was dated June 2, 2021, and the court stated that it appeared to have been accessed by Diaz on that date. The court also noted a date suggesting the results were received by Sullivan Correctional Facility on September 5, 1990, but the opinion does not explain that discrepancy.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy. It may be available when the movant identifies a change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent serious injustice. It is not a way to repeat old arguments, raise new theories, or obtain another hearing on issues already decided.
The court found that Diaz had not identified any new decision changing controlling law. It also determined that his arguments about his low IQ and clerical or legal-assistance errors repeated matters he had raised in his earlier objections. The court had already decided that those allegations did not amount to exceptional circumstances.
The court further held that the examination results were not newly available evidence. The document predated the December 28, 2022 judgment and could have been presented earlier. The court also stated that the exhibit would not change the decision in the December 28 order.
Disposition
Judge Analisa Torres denied Diaz’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 39 and mail Diaz a copy of the order. The court stated that it did not need further briefing from the parties.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.