Filed: Aug. 30, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 30, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S NINTH MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS Re: Dkt. No. 269 MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . By order filed September 22, 2017, the Court denied defendant Jon Zavalidroga's petition for a writ of coram nobis. Thereafter, defendant, on eight occasions, filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the denial of said petition. 1 The Court denied each of the motions for reconsideration, defendant having failed to set forth any
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S NINTH MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS Re: Dkt. No. 269 MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . By order filed September 22, 2017, the Court denied defendant Jon Zavalidroga's petition for a writ of coram nobis. Thereafter, defendant, on eight occasions, filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the denial of said petition. 1 The Court denied each of the motions for reconsideration, defendant having failed to set forth any ..
More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S NINTH MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS
Re: Dkt. No. 269
MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.
By order filed September 22, 2017, the Court denied defendant Jon Zavalidroga's petition for a writ of coram nobis. Thereafter, defendant, on eight occasions, filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the denial of said petition.1 The Court denied each of the motions for reconsideration, defendant having failed to set forth any cognizable basis for reconsideration.
The Court is now in receipt of defendant's "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60(b) Motion," filed August 23, 2019, whereby defendant, for the ninth time, seeks reconsideration of the Court's order of September 22, 2017. The instant motion, like its predecessors, once again fails to identify any cognizable basis for reconsideration.
Accordingly, defendant's ninth motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
Lastly, if defendant elects to appeal the instant order, the Court, to the extent a certificate of appealability may be required, 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.
