The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dora L. Irizarry, United States District Judge
On November 4, 2009, this court dismissed pro se plaintiff's complaint. (See Docket Entry 22.)*fn1 When dismissing the complaint, the court also reaffirmed its prior Order barring plaintiff from filing future in forma pauperis complaints. On June 9, 2010, plaintiff moved "for reconsideration entery [sic] to your court." (See Docket Entry No. 28.) The court would typically construe a motion such as this as one pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3. However, as it was filed seven months after the court's decision, it would normally be dismissed as untimely. Courts sometimes construe untimely motions for reconsideration as being brought under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly when made by pro se litigants. Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd. v. King, 2009 WL 1739893, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2009) (citing United States v. Clark, 984 F.2d 31, 32 (2d Cir. 1993)). Regardless, the court finds the motion is without merit.
The court liberally reviews pro se submissions "to raise the strongest argument that they suggest." Bennett v. Goord, 343 F.3d 133, 137 (2d Cir. 2003) (citations and internal quotations omitted). "A motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60 must adhere to stringent standards, because such relief is limited to the six grounds specified in the rule." Welkovics v. Hebrew Academy of Capital Dist., 1995 WL 760726, at *1 (N.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 1995).*fn2 In deciding such motions, "a court must balance the policy in favor of hearing a litigant's claims on the merits against the policy in favor of finality." Kotlicky v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 817 F.2d 6, 9 (2d Cir. 1987). "Moreover, courts typically require that the evidence in support of the motion for relief be highly convincing, that a party show good cause for the failure to act sooner, and that no undue hardship be imposed on other parties." Welkovics, 1995 WL 760726, at *1 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). District courts have "sound discretion" to rule on such motions. See Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7 (1978).
As with all of plaintiff's previous filings, plaintiff's one-page document is incomprehensible and offers only vague, incoherent statements. The court cannot discern any cognizable legal arguments from the rambling nature of plaintiff's submissions. None of plaintiff's statements are persuasive, let alone "highly convincing." Welkovics, 1995 WL 760726, at *1. The interests of finality thus far outweigh any policy of revisiting the dismissed claims. See Kotlicky,817 F.2d at 9. Accordingly, the court exercises its discretion to deny the instant motion in its entirety. See Browder, 434 U.S. at 263 n.7.
DORA L. IRIZARRY United States ...