The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is the State Defendants'*fn1 motion
for reconsideration of this Court's June 25, 1999 Order. For the
reasons discussed below, the motion is denied.
In their motion for summary judgment, the State Defendants
argued that the Plaintiff's procedural due process claim failed
on two grounds: (1) the claim was barred by the holdings of the
Supreme Court in Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 117 S.Ct.
1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997), and Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994); and (2) the
defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. See State
Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary
Judgment, at 12, 19. Notably, the State Defendants did not move
for summary judgment on this claim on the basis that they did
not violate Plaintiff's procedural due process rights.
In his cross-motion, Plaintiff argued that his procedural due
process rights were violated by his summary removal from the
Temporary Work Release Program, without having received, inter
alia, adequate advance notice of the February 12, 1992 Temporary
Release Committee hearing, and a meaningful statement of reasons
for his removal. See Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, at
1-2. Plaintiff also rebutted the Defendants' arguments that his
claim was barred by Edwards and Heck, and disputed the
Defendants' claim to qualified immunity. See id., at 6, 17.
At oral argument on June 25, 1999, the State Defendants
conceded that Plaintiff's procedural due process claim was not
barred by Edwards and Heck, in light of the then-recent
Second Circuit decision in Jenkins v. Haubert, 179 F.3d 19 (2d
Cir. 1999). See Transcript of Oral Argument ("Transcript"), at
4. After hearing oral argument, the Court delivered its opinion
from the bench. See Transcript, at 42-49. The Court noted that
in their Answer, the State Defendants had not denied the
Plaintiff's allegation that he was given no notice of the
February 12, 1992 TRC hearing, but merely had denied any
wrongdoing. See Transcript, at 47; see also State Defendants'
Answer to Third Amended Complaint, ¶ 100. The Court also pointed
out that, in response to the Plaintiff's statement pursuant to
Local Civil Rule 56.1, the State Defendants merely commented that
they "disputed" Plaintiff's statements that he received no notice
of the February 12, 1999 TRC hearing, and that he did not receive
a statement of reasons for his removal from the program until
July 1993. See Transcript, at 47.
Finding that the general denials found in the State Defendants'
Answer and 56.1 Counter-Statement were insufficient to raise a
genuine issue of material fact that would defeat summary
judgment, the Court granted Plaintiff's cross-motion on the
procedural due process claim, and correspondingly denied the
State Defendants' motion on this claim. See Transcript, at 48.
The remainder of the State Defendants' motion was granted in part
and denied in part. The Court reiterated its holding in a summary
Order issued the same day. See Order dated June 25, 1999.
A motion for reconsideration is governed by Local Civil Rule
6.3. A motion under this rule is appropriate where a party
believes that the Court has overlooked "matters or controlling
decisions" that might have influenced the earlier decision. Local
Civil Rule 6.3; see also Shamis v. Ambassador Factors Corp.,
187 F.R.D. 148, 151 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (citing cases). Local Civil
Rule 6.3 is narrowly construed, and consideration of a motion
under the rule is committed to the sound discretion of the
district court. Shamis, 187 F.R.D. at 151.
In keeping with its design to prevent relitigation of matters
already plainly reviewed by the Court, the rule also requires
that a motion for reconsideration be served within ten days after
the docketing of the determination of the original motion. Local
Civil Rule 6.3. Moreover, no oral argument is available on a
motion for reconsideration and no affidavits may be filed unless
the court so directs. Id.
A. Violation of Local ...