Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Goord

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


March 9, 2007

JOMO WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
COMMISSIONER GOORD, COMMISSIONER OF NYS DOC; ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

DECISION and ORDER

A. Background

By Order dated March 3, 2006 ("March Order"), the Court rejected papers filed by Jomo Williams ("Williams" or "plaintiff"). The March Order found that plaintiff's submissions did not comply with the Local Rules and it was unclear what plaintiff was requesting from the Court. Docket No. 22. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 24) on March 23, 2006.*fn1

B. Motion for Reconsideration

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)).

In support of his motion for reconsideration, Williams asserts that he could not comply with Local Rule 10 because he did not have a copy of it.*fn2 Further, Plaintiff alleges that he did not submit single sided copies because his supply of paper is limited. Plaintiff also attached twenty three (23) other handwritten pages to this Motion which are unrelated to this Motion, including grievances, mail logs, and various requests to persons in and outside of the correctional facility.*fn3 After review of the pending motion for reconsideration of a very old rejection order, it is clear that plaintiff has not established any of the appropriate factors in his motion for reconsideration, and, therefore, this motion must be denied.

The court notes that the docket in this action is filled with document rejection orders and plaintiff's unnecessary and meritless appeals from these orders. (Dkt. Nos. 18, 19, 24, 26, 31, 33, 34, 35, 49, 51). Plaintiff has even filed appeals of rejection and other orders to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. (Dkt. Nos. 26, 39). On September 27, 2006, the Second Circuit dismissed plaintiff's appeal of a rejection order based upon the lack of a final order as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the absence of a decision on plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief. (Dkt. No. 44)(Mandate).

Plaintiff has appealed to the Second Circuit the order that denied his request to be excused from submitting copies of his amended complaint for service. (Dkt. No. 39).

Plaintiff filed his appeal to the Second Circuit even before Senior Judge Scullin decided plaintiff's appeal of that order to the District Court.*fn4 It is clear that rather than attempting to comply with the court's orders, plaintiff is filling the docket with unnecessary motions and appeals. Although he complains that his supply of paper is limited, he continues to submit page after page of material on his needless motions to reconsider. If he had simply complied with the court's first order, he would have had enough paper to submit the required 14 copies of his amended complaint for service on defendants.

WHEREFORE, in light of the above, it is hereby ORDERED, that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 24) is DENIED, and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on the plaintiff by regular mail.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.