Pizzaro v. United States
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-01149
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Pizzaro v. United States, Judge Woods denied Pizzaro’s request to reconsider earlier orders denying counsel and post-conviction relief.
Ruben Pizzaro’s request for reconsideration was denied, along with permission to appeal without paying the filing fee and a certificate of appealability.
What happened
In Pizzaro v. United States, the court had previously denied Ruben Pizzaro’s request for appointed counsel and his challenge to his conviction and sentence under a federal post-conviction statute. The challenge concerned convictions for several crimes, including murder.
Pizzaro asked the court to reconsider or change those earlier orders. He acknowledged that he could not identify new evidence, a change in controlling law, or a clear error that would justify reconsideration under the applicable federal rules.
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied the motion. He also denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee and denied a certificate required for an appeal of the post-conviction ruling. The clerk was directed to close the pending motion.
The detailed version
- Pizzaro v. United States · No. 1:21-cv-01149
- Gregory Woods
- Apr. 5, 2023
Background
The court had entered two earlier orders involving Ruben Pizzaro. In May 2021, it denied his request for appointed counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. In March 2023, it denied Pizzaro’s challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to his conviction and sentence for a series of crimes, including murder.
On April 4, 2023, Pizzaro moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(6) to reconsider or amend those orders.
Legal standard
The court explained that reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy. It generally requires the moving party to identify an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error that must be corrected to prevent serious injustice.
The court stated that relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which permits relief from an order in exceptional circumstances, also requires highly convincing evidence, good cause for not acting sooner, and a showing that relief would not unfairly burden other parties. Whether to grant that relief remains within the district court’s discretion.
Ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied Pizzaro’s motion. The court relied on Pizzaro’s admission that he could not provide new evidence, identify a change in controlling law, or demonstrate clear error in the earlier decisions. The court therefore concluded that the standards for reconsideration and relief from the earlier orders were not met.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Pizzaro permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. It also denied a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 because Pizzaro had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion listed at Docket No. 7 in the 21-cv-1149 case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.