United States District Court, S.D. New York
May 12, 2004.
JAMES OATES, Plaintiff, -v- CITY OF NEW YORK, et al. Defendants
The opinion of the court was delivered by: GERARD E. LYNCH, District Judge
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff pro se has requested modification and reversal of
the Court's Opinion and Order dated April 2, 2004, dismissing his claims
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Oates v. City of New
York, No. 02 Civ. 5960, 2004 WL 744611 (S.D.N.Y. April 6, 2004).
Plaintiff's request is accepted as a motion for reargument under
Rule 6.3 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, and as a motion to extend time to
Plaintiff argues that his claims are exempt from the exhaustion
requirement because his claims were non-grievable under the policies of
the New York City Department of Correction. Although he did not raise
these arguments in his opposition to defendants' original motion,
Id. at *1, it is in the interest of justice to allow plaintiff
to present, and the government to respond to, his new arguments.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. That plaintiff's motion for an extension of
time to request reargument is granted nunc
pro tunc and that his request for
reargument is granted;
2. That the defendants shall submit a brief
response to plaintiff's motion, which shall be
limited to 10 pages, no later than June 3,
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.