The opinion of the court was delivered by: Scullin, Senior Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Jack Vigliotti commenced this § 1983 civil rights action on October 20, 2005. See Dkt. No. 1. In a Memorandum-Decision and Order dated January 10, 2006, this Court concluded that Plaintiff's claims arose from incidents that occurred more than three years prior to the date on which he filed his complaint and that, therefore, his complaint was untimely. However, due to Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint and instructed him that "[a]ny amended complaint that [he] file[d] . . must allege claims of misconduct or wrongdoing against Defendants which arise from events that occurred no more than three years prior to October 18, 2005; i.e., on or after October 18, 2002, and over which this Court may properly exercise jurisdiction." See Memorandum-Decision and Order dated January 10, 2006, at 4. Rather than submitting an amended complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its January 10, 2006 Memorandum-Decision and Order, see Dkt. No. 7, which is currently before the Court for its consideration.
"A court may justifiably reconsider its previous ruling if: (1) there is an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) new evidence not previously available comes to light; or (3) it becomes necessary to remedy a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice." Delaney v. Selsky, 899 F. Supp. 923, 925 (N.D.N.Y. 1995) (citing Doe v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 864, 104 S.Ct. 195, 78 L.Ed. 2d 171 (1983)).
In support of his request for reconsideration, Plaintiff asserts that (1) "he had a 'Genuine Belief' that he had until at least October 24, 2005, to file his Complaint;" (2) he was being treated at the Central New York Psychiatric Center from August 30, 2002, until October 23, 2002; and (3) he "was under Mental Health care from the time of Placement in glass-cell August 15, 2002 -January 2004." See Dkt. No. 7 at 2-3. It appears that Plaintiff is arguing that, although his claim first accrued on August 15, 2002, his injury continued beyond that date; and, therefore, the Court should consider his complaint timely under the "continuing wrong" theory. See id. at Memorandum of Law at 1-4.
Plaintiff also asks the Court to "invoke New York States [sic] Insanity Section § 208 C.P.L.R. McKinneys Consolidated Law" to toll the statute of limitations during the time he was receiving mental health treatment. See id. at Memorandum of Law at 5. Plaintiff claims that, during the time that he was being treated, he was "unable to manage affairs or comprehend and protect his legal rights, because of an over all [sic] inability to function . . . ." See id. at Memorandum of Law at 6.
In light of Plaintiff's pro se status and because the Court needs the benefit of Defendants' answer or other response to address the issues that Plaintiff has raised in his motion for reconsideration, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and, as a result, directs service of the original complaint. At this time, however, the Court takes no position regarding the merits of Plaintiff's arguments.
Accordingly, for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is GRANTED; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall issue summonses and forward them, together with copies of the complaint, to the United States Marshal for service upon Defendants;*fn1 and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall forward a copy of the summons and complaint, together with a copy of this Order, by mail to the Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall provide the Superintendent of the facility that Plaintiff has designated as his current location with a copy of Plaintiff's authorization form and notify that official that Plaintiff has filed this action and is required to pay the entire statutory filing fee of $250.00 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall provide a copy of Plaintiff's authorization form to the Financial Deputy of the ...