The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this action, pro se, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII") based on the gender discrimination he claims to have suffered during his employment with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). On January 4, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for judgment on the pleadings claiming that defendant's answer failed to comport with the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. No. 14). Defendant opposed plaintiff's motion. (Dkt. No. 20). On June 30, 2008, defendant filed a motion pursuant to Rule 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings based upon the following grounds: (1) plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to his Title VII claims for gender discrimination; (2) plaintiff failed to allege facts that constitute an adverse employment action to support claims of gender discrimination; and (3) plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie claim of retaliation. (Dkt. No. 49). Plaintiff opposed defendant's motion. (Dkt. No. 51). On August 27, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Rule 15 to supplement the complaint. (Dkt. No. 57). Defendant opposed the motion. (Dkt. No. 59). On March 31, 2011, Chief United States District Judge Norman A. Mordue issued a Memorandum-Decision and Order resolving the motions and holding:
ORDERED, that plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 14), which the Court has deemed a motion to strike, is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED, that defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 49) and dismissal of plaintiff's claim that defendant retaliated against him by failing to conduct a SAC interview in compliance with § 11-4.1 of the Manual of Administrative Operations in connection with plaintiff's request for a hardship transfer is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 49) and dismissal of plaintiff's complaint is otherwise DENIED; and it is further ORDERED, that plaintiff's motion to supplement the complaint (Dkt. No. 57) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that plaintiff must file his supplemented complaint within 20 days of the issuance of this Order; and it is further ORDERED, that within 30 days of receipt of plaintiff's supplemented complaint, defendant shall file an Answer and shall properly respond to the allegations in plaintiff's original and supplemented complaint as directed in this Order. The response shall consist of an admission or denial consistent with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to unseal this case on April 29, 2011 in accordance with this Order. The Sealing Order dated January 13, 2009 (Dkt. No. 69) is hereby vacated. The parties are directed to provide any submissions regarding the confidentiality of any documents, as directed in this Order, on or before April 26, 2011; and it is further (Dkt. No. 134).
Presently before the Court are two motions: (1) defendant's motion for reconsideration of portions of the prior Memorandum-Decision and Order ("MDO") (Dkt. No. 144); and (2) defendant's motion for dismissal of plaintiff's third cause of action set forth the in the Supplemental Complaint (Dkt. No. 153). Plaintiff has opposed both motions.
Familiarity with the facts of this case is assumed based on this Court's previous MDO and will not be repeated herein. Giarrizzo v. Mukasey, 07-CV-0801, Dkt. No. 134 (Mar. 31, 2011).*fn1
I. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Defendant argues that reconsideration of portions of the prior MDO is necessary pursuant to N.D.N.Y.L.R. 7.1(g).*fn2 The standards for motions to vacate under local district court rules are very similar to those used for motions to reconsider under Rule 60(b). See McAnaney v. Astoria Fin. Corp., 2008 WL 222524 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (discussing cases). Relief under Rule 60 is considered "extraordinary judicial relief." Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir.1986). For that reason, the motion will generally be denied unless the moving party or parties can show that the court overlooked facts or controlling law that "might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). Generally, "[a] court may justifiably reconsider its previous ruling if: (1) there is an intervening change in 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). Motions to vacate or to reconsider should not be granted if a moving party seeks only to relitigate an issue that has already been fully considered by the court. Id. at 257. The Second Circuit has warned, that a Rule 60 motion may not be used as a substitute for appeal and that a claim based on legal error alone is inadequate. United Airlines, Inc. v. Brien, 588 F.3d 158, 176 (2d Cir. 2009).
Defendant argues that the Court should reconsider the portion of the prior MDO that denied defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint and the portion of the decision that granted plaintiff's motion to supplement his complaint.
A. Argument for Reconsideration of Dismissal of Complaint
Defendant argues for reconsideration of the decision not to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for the following reasons: (1) the Court mistakenly relied upon the Conley v. Gibson standard for assessing the sufficiency of plaintiff's complaint; (2) plaintiff did not plead an adverse action; and (3) new caselaw supports the dismissal of the complaint for failure to timely exhaust administrative remedies.*fn3
With respect to the sufficiency of the complaint, defendant alleges that the Court erred when it failed to apply the correct standard in assessing the complaint. To wit, defendant claims that the Court failed to use the two step analysis found in Twombly and Iqbal and argues that ...