Opinion
24 Civ. 1266 (VM) 09 Cr. 341 (VM)
06-21-2024
JOSE PENA, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
ORDER
VICTOR MARRERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jose Pena (“Pena”), defendant in No. 09 Cr. 341, movespro se for reconsideration of the Court's Decision and Order (the “D&O”) dated May 14, 2024, which denied a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“Section 2255”) motion he had previously filed. Pena's motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED for the reasons below.
The motion is filed at Docket No. 481 in No. 09 Cr. 341 and Docket No. 10 in No. 24 Civ. 1266.
The D&O is filed at Docket No. 480 in No. 09 Cr. 341 and Docket No. 9 in No. 24 Civ. 1266.
Reconsideration of a previous Court order is an “extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” Sikhs for Just. v. Nath, 893 F.Supp.2d 598, 605 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Montanile v. NBC, 216 F.Supp.2d 341, 342 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)). “Accordingly, the standard of review appliable to such a motion is ‘strict.'” Id. (quoting Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)). “The burden is on the movant to demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or material facts that were before it on the original motion, and that might materially have influenced its earlier decision.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). A party seeking consideration cannot repeat “arguments already briefed, considered and decided” or “advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the Court.” Id. (quoting Schonberger v. Serchuk, 742 F.Supp. 108, 119 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)).
Construing Pena's pro se motion for reconsideration “liberally” and interpreting it “to raise the strongest arguments that [it] suggest[s],” McPherson v. Coombe, 174 F.3d 276, 280 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir. 1994)), the Court finds that Pena has fallen far short of demonstrating that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or material facts that were before it on Pena's original Section 2255 motion and that might materially have influenced the D&O. See Nath, 893 F.Supp.2d at 605. The Court further finds that Pena in large part has merely repeated arguments already considered and rejected by the Court in the D&O. See id. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion for reconsideration.
The Clerk of Court is hereby respectfully ORDERED to mail a copy of this Order to Jose Pena, Register No. 90703054, USP Coleman I, U.S. Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1033, Coleman, FL 33521.
SO ORDERED.