Cantor v. Martinez, 3:24-cv-02181

Joshua J. Cantor filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
The District Court denied Cantor's habeas petition and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Judgment was entered and the case was closed on April 4, 2025.
Cantor subsequently filed a motion requesting a certificate of appealability, which the court treated as a motion for reconsideration.
Cantor did not present any new evidence, changes in law, or affidavits with his motion.
The court considered whether its prior order should be reconsidered or amended in light of this motion.

Issue	Cantor's Argument	Martinez's Argument	Held
Whether Cantor is entitled to a certificate of appealability after denial of his habeas petition	Disagrees with the Court’s denial and believes reasonable jurists could debate the outcome	Argues no basis exists for reconsideration as no new facts or law were presented	Not entitled to certificate of appealability or reconsideration
Whether the motion qualifies as a valid motion for reconsideration under CivLR 7.1.i or Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)/60(b)	Motion should be granted as Court’s decision is debatable	Motion is improper; no affidavit, new evidence, or change in law shown	Motion is improper and denied

Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169 (explains when a post-judgment motion is treated as a Rule 59(e) motion)
White v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Employ’t Sec., 455 U.S. 445 (discusses scope of reconsideration under Rule 59(e))
Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934 (articulates the high standard for granting reconsideration)
Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456 (addresses the importance of finality in judgments)
Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877 (reaffirms Rule 59(e) reconsideration standards)