UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
December 14, 2006
EARVIN LEE BROWN, PLAINTIFF,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Norman A. Mordue, Chief U.S. District Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER
By Memorandum-Decision and Order of this Court filed July 13, 2006, the motion filed by plaintiff Earvin Lee Brown for injunctive relief and the appointment of counsel was denied. Dkt. No. 35 (the "July Order"). Presently before this Court is a motion from plaintiff seeking reconsideration of the July Order.
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) (McAvoy, C.J.) (citing Doe v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 864 (1983)).
By his motion for reconsideration, which is directed primarily to the
denial of his request for injunctive relief, plaintiff contends that
the Court's analysis of his motion was erroneous due to the Court's
reliance upon affidavit testimony submitted on behalf of the
defendants regarding the accommodations provided to visually impaired
inmates at Sullivan Correctional Facility, where plaintiff is
incarcerated.*fn1 Plaintiff contends that this
affidavit was not accurate, and reasserts his belief that he is being
denied reasonable accommodation for his disability and that
preliminary injunctive relief should be granted directing defendants
to provide him with a "talking computer bookreader"*fn2
for his personal use in his cell. Dkt. No. 37 at
Upon review of the file, including plaintiff's motion and supporting exhibits,*fn4 the Court finds that the requests for injunctive relief and appointment of counsel were properly denied and that plaintiff has not established that reconsideration of the July Order is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. The fact that plaintiff disagrees with the Court's decision does not warrant reconsideration thereof.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED, that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the July Order (Dkt. No. 37) is denied, and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order on the parties. IT IS SO ORDERED.