The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Hugh B. Scott
Before the Court is yet another motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiff in this case (Docket No. 165 ).*fn1 The plaintiff, Injah Tafari ("Plaintiff") commenced this action pro se, seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several doctors at five separate correctional facilities relating to the medical treatment he received for pain caused by a broken surgical screw in his left shoulder over the course of several years.*fn2 (Compl. ¶¶ 44, 45, 46.)*fn3 The crux of the plaintiff's claim is that a broken surgical screw in his shoulder caused him great pain and should have been surgically removed several years ago. On February 11, 2009, after reviewing papers submitted on behalf of the plaintiff by assigned counsel, and additional papers submitted by the plaintiff pro se, the Court granted summary judgment inasmuch as the plaintiff could not establish, as a matter of law, deliberate indifference on the part of any of the defendants. As noted in that decision, the record reflects that the plaintiff received appropriate care relating to his complaints of shoulder pain; and that, during the time period in question, the orthopedic specialists did not agree as to the need for surgery. (Docket No. 135). Subsequently, on February 25, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration and provided the Court with hundreds of additional documents (some duplicative of those already in the record). Further, the plaintiff stated that he wished to submit still other documents, but that these additional documents were confiscated by individuals at the correctional facility when they were sent by the plaintiff to be copied.*fn4 These documents purport to be "sick call request slips" he allegedly provided to the correctional facilities requesting medical attention. On May 8, 2009, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration on the grounds that he failed to assert any basis for why he did not submit the documents when given the opportunity to do so prior to the grant of summary judgment; that the additional documents submitted with the motion for reconsideration did not warrant reconsideration of the Court's grant of summary judgment; and that based upon the record already before the Court, the additional, now purportedly missing, sick call slips would have been duplicative of the evidence already before the Court and would not have warranted reconsideration of the Court's granting of summary judgment in this case. (Docket No. 163).
By way of the instant motion, the plaintiff does not raise any new issue relating to the merits of his original claims in this matter. Instead, the plaintiff alleges conduct by individuals other than the defendants in this action. Such allegations are not properly included within the claims before the Court in this matter and will not be addressed herein. In any event, as noted above, the plaintiff has not met his burden for reconsideration under either Rule 60(b) or Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.*fn5
Based on the above, the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 165) is denied. Inasmuch as this is the third motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiff relating to the granting of summary judgment in this case, the Court directs that the Clerk of the Court refuse to accept any additional motions for reconsideration filed by the plaintiff in this matter.
Further, the Court hereby certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), that any appeal in this matter would not be taken in good faith, and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals as a poor person is denied. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 82 S.Ct. 917, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962). Further requests to proceed on appeal as a poor person should be directed, on motion, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in accordance with Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Hugh B. Scott United States Magistrate Judge Western District of New York