United States District Court, N.D. New York
December 13, 2005.
DUNCAN J. McNEIL, III, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES and its Officers and Agencies; CLERK, U.S. District Court NDNY; CLERK, U.S. Bankruptcy Court NDNY; U.S. ATTORNEY, NDNY; OFFICE OF U.S. TRUSTEE NDNY; U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE NDNY; FBI NDNY; IRS NDNY; SECRET SERVICE NDNY, and their officers, Defendants. DUNCAN J. McNEIL, III Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES and its Officers and Agencies; CLERK, U.S. District Court NDNY; CLERK, U.S. Bankruptcy Court NDNY; U.S. ATTORNEY, NDNY; OFFICE OF U.S. TRUSTEE NDNY; U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE NDNY; FBI NDNY; IRS NDNY; SECRET SERVICE NDNY, and their officers, Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: NORMAN MORDUE, District Judge
By Decision and Order of this Court filed October 7, 2005,
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied and this action
was dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to comply with the
Court's direction that he (i) either pay the statutory filing fee
for this action or file a renewed in forma pauperis application supported by a signed inmate
authorization form and evidence regarding his prior litigation
sufficient to establish that the dismissal of those prior actions
should not be considered to be "strikes" within the meaning of
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and (ii) file an amended complaint which
complies with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Dkt. No. 7.
Presently before the Court is a renewed and supplemental
request for reconsideration from plaintiff. Dkt. No. 9. This
request consists of a copy of plaintiff's original motion for
reconsideration, to which plaintiff has appended a three page
supplement. In addition to renewing his arguments in support of
reconsideration, plaintiff appears to seek additional time in
which to appeal the dismissal of this action to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Dkt. No. 9 at 9.
Plaintiff's supplemental motion for reconsideration does not
set forth any new or additional grounds for granting the
requested relief. The fact that plaintiff disagrees with the
Court's decision does not warrant reconsideration thereof. A
motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle for advancing
arguments previously rejected. Thus, plaintiff's supplemental
motion for reconsideration is denied.
As noted, plaintiff also appears to seek an extension of time
in which to appeal the dismissal of this action to the Second
Circuit. Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
provides that upon a showing of "excusable neglect or good cause"
a district court may extend the time for filing an
appeal.*fn1 A motion requesting such an extension must be
filed not later than thirty days after the expiration of the appeal period set forth in Rule
4(a). Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i).
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied by Decision
and Order filed November 17, 2005 (Dkt. No. 7) and Judgment
dismissing this action was entered on November 29, 2005. Dkt. No.
8. Plaintiff's motion was filed on December 1, 2005, prior to the
expiration of the period for filing a notice of appeal. However,
plaintiff has not made any showing of excusable neglect or good
cause for extending the appeal period, and his request is
WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED, that plaintiff's supplemental motion for
reconsideration and request to extend the time for filing an
appeal (Dkt. No. 9) is denied, and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.