Rivas v. Melecio, 2:23-cv-05718

Rudi Rivas, a state prisoner, filed a pro se habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging two previous state court convictions.
The petition was dismissed by the district court on August 21, 2023 as a successive habeas petition under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which requires appellate court approval for such filings.
Rivas sought reconsideration of the dismissal order, invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3.
The court previously noted Rivas's filing restrictions due to a pattern of vexatious, repetitive litigation.
The Second Circuit had denied Rivas authorization to file a similar successive habeas petition in April 2023.
The court reviewed Rivas's request for reconsideration and determined it did not meet the standard for altering the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reconsideration of dismissal of habeas petition	Rivas argued reconsideration warranted	Melecio (Superintendent) argued repeated denial and lack of new grounds	Motion for reconsideration denied
Jurisdiction over successive habeas petitions	Rivas sought district court review	Melecio cited AEDPA limits	No district court jurisdiction
Standard for motions to reconsider	Rivas implied prior decision was in error	Melecio argued no new evidence or law presented	No clear error; reconsideration denied
Prior vexatious filing sanctions	Not directly disputed by Rivas	Melecio cited Second Circuit's previous denials and sanctions	Sanctions noted; filing denied

Torres v. Senkowski, 316 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2003) (appellate court, not district court, must authorize successive habeas petitions)
Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (reconsideration only if court overlooked controlling decisions or data)
Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2012) (reconsideration not for relitigating issues or new theories)