Medina v. New York State Division of Parole
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-03763
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Medina v. New York State Division of Parole, Judge Broderick denied Medina’s reconsideration requests as untimely and unsupported.
Anthony Medina, whose reconsideration requests were denied, and the New York State Division of Parole and the other named defendants, who were not granted reconsideration.
What happened
In Medina v. New York State Division of Parole, Anthony Medina asked the court to reconsider part of an earlier order. He also referred to an earlier reconsideration request based on the same grounds.
The court said the requests were filed too late. One was filed more than two years after the challenged order, and the earlier request was filed more than two months after the order it addressed. The court also said Medina identified no valid reason for reconsideration and that the legal authority he relied on had been misapplied and already considered.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the motions at Documents 54 and 136 as untimely, denied the current motion, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion pending at Document 135.
The detailed version
- Medina v. New York State Division of Parole · No. 1:20-cv-03763
- Vernon Broderick
- Oct. 27, 2023
Background
Anthony Medina moved for reconsideration of part of the court’s February 16, 2021 Opinion and Order. His supporting declaration also referred to a September 24, 2020 letter seeking reconsideration of the court’s July 12, 2020 order on the same grounds.
Reasoning
The court applied Local Civil Rule 6.3, which requires a motion for reconsideration to be served within 14 days after the court’s determination of the original motion. The court found that Medina’s current motion was filed more than two years after the February 16, 2021 order. It also found that the September 24, 2020 letter was filed more than two months after the July 12, 2020 order. The court therefore concluded that the motions at Documents 54 and 136 were untimely.
The court added that it would deny the current motion even if it had been timely. Reconsideration requires a showing such as an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The court stated that Medina identified no change in the law, acknowledged that he had filed a third or fourth reconsideration motion on identical grounds, and relied on law that the court had misapplied and had already considered in the challenged Opinion and Order.
Disposition
The court denied the motions at Documents 54 and 136 as untimely and denied the current motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion pending at Document 135. This order addressed reconsideration of earlier rulings rather than the underlying legal claims, so it is classified as a procedural order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.