Greeman v. State of New York
- Subramanian
- 1:22-cv-04300
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Greeman v. Superintendent, Judge Subramanian denied Edward Greeman’s second request to reconsider the earlier denial of his habeas petition.
Edward Greeman’s second motion for reconsideration was denied; the earlier denial of his habeas petition remained in place.
What happened
In Greeman v. Superintendent, the court had previously denied Edward Greeman’s petition asking for habeas relief. Greeman later filed a first motion asking the court to reconsider that decision, which the court denied.
Greeman then filed a second reconsideration motion under Rules 59(e) and 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He sought relief based on those rules, which address reconsidering judgments and correcting certain mistakes or excusable neglect.
Judge Arun Subramanian ruled that Greeman had shown no valid basis for relief under either rule. The court denied the motion and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate it.
The detailed version
- Greeman v. State of New York · No. 1:22-cv-04300
- Subramanian
- Jan. 29, 2024
Background
On October 20, 2023, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order denying Edward Greeman’s motion for a writ of habeas corpus. On November 16, 2023, Greeman filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied.
On January 3, 2024, Greeman filed a second motion for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(1). Rule 59(e) permits a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment, while Rule 60(b)(1) permits relief based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
Court’s Reasoning
The court explained that Rule 59 is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting new theories, seeking a rehearing on the merits, or taking another opportunity to argue the case. Reconsideration generally requires the moving party to identify controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked. The court also noted the grounds available under Rule 60(b)(1).
Ruling
The court held that Greeman presented no valid grounds for relief under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b)(1). Judge Arun Subramanian therefore denied the motion and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Docket 45.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.