Curtis Van Stuyvesant v. James Conway

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CURTIS VAN STUYVESANT, PETITIONER, -against- 1:03-CV-03856 (JLR) JAMES CONWAY, ORDER RESPONDENT.

JENNIFER L. ROCHON, United States District Judge: WHEREAS, on August 5, 2025, Petitioner Curtis Van Stuyvesant (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60(b) seeking vacatur of Judge Kaplan’s September 10, 2007 order denying his habeas corpus petition, Dkt. 90; WHEREAS Petitioner filed an earlier motion to vacate the September 10, 2007 order on October 5, 2022, Dkt. 86, which was denied by this Court on January 20, 2023, Stuyvesant v. Conway, No. 03 Civ. 3856 (JLR), 2023 WL 348469, at *1-4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2023), Dkt. 88; and WHEREAS the Court has reviewed the arguments set forth in Petitioner’s present Rule 60(b) motion and finds the motion to be untimely and without merit, in large part for many of the same reasons that his earlier petition was denied in Stuyvesant v. Conway, No. 03 Civ. 3856 (JLR), 2023 WL 348469, at *1-4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2023); WHERERAS Petitioner requested appointment of pro bono counsel, Dkt. 91 at 55; WHEREAS Petitioner shall not be granted pro bono counsel because Petitioner’s

claims are without merit, Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986) (court must consider the merits of the claims brought and appointment of counsel 1s unwarranted where the chances of success are slim); IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF 90. Dated: September 16, 2025 New York, New York SO ORDERED. Mite: — United States District Judge