Filed: Oct. 15, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 15, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; DENYING ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Re: Dkt. No. 246 MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . The Court is in receipt of defendant's "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(1) Motion," filed October 9, 2018. Having read and considered the motion, the Court hereby rules as follows. By order filed September 22, 2017, the Court denied defendant's petition for a writ of coram nobis, finding defendant had failed to explain why he delayed
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; DENYING ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Re: Dkt. No. 246 MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . The Court is in receipt of defendant's "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(1) Motion," filed October 9, 2018. Having read and considered the motion, the Court hereby rules as follows. By order filed September 22, 2017, the Court denied defendant's petition for a writ of coram nobis, finding defendant had failed to explain why he delayed f..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; DENYING ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Re: Dkt. No. 246
MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.
The Court is in receipt of defendant's "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(1) Motion," filed October 9, 2018. Having read and considered the motion, the Court hereby rules as follows.
By order filed September 22, 2017, the Court denied defendant's petition for a writ of coram nobis, finding defendant had failed to explain why he delayed filing the petition for over nineteen years after the entry of judgment in the above-titled action. Thereafter, by orders filed October 23, 2017, and June 22, 2018, respectively, the Court denied defendant's motions for reconsideration of the Court's order of September 22, 2017.
By the instant motion, defendant, again, seeks reconsideration of the order of September 22, 2017.1 Defendant, however, does no more than repeat arguments made in the petition and in the prior two motions for reconsideration.
Accordingly, the instant motion is hereby DENIED.
Lastly, if defendant elects to appeal the instant order, the Court, to the extent the requirement that a defendant obtain a certificate of appealability may be applicable to any such appeal, hereby DENIES such certificate, as defendant has not made any showing, let alone a "substantial showing," that he has been denied a "constitutional right." See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
