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.

Aror Ark O'diah, Pro Se, Capacities v. Hereford Insurance Company and Jerry Makulik

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


May 21, 2012

AROR ARK O'DIAH, PRO SE, CAPACITIES,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
HEREFORD INSURANCE COMPANY AND JERRY MAKULIK, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OFFICIAL
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dora L. Irizarry, United States District Judge:

SUMMARY ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Aror Ark O'Diah, an inmate currently in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, filed the instant motion, again, seeking to (1) vacate this Court's March 16, 2011 Memorandum & Order dismissing his case with prejudice (Doc. Entry No. 66), and (2) establish that he filed a timely Notice of Appeal. (See Doc. Entry Nos. 79-80.) The Court construes the instant motion as a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's January 23, 2012 Summary Order (see Summ. Order, Doc. Entry No. 77), which denied Petitioner's previous motion to vacate (see Doc. Entry No. 73). For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's second motion to vacate, construed as a motion for reconsideration, is denied.

DISCUSSION

This Order is written for the benefit of the parties and familiarity with the underlying facts and issues is presumed.*fn1 The Court construes plaintiff's motion liberally, as is required of pro se submissions,*fn2 as seeking a motion for reconsideration.

"The standard for granting [a motion for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked-matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader v. CSX Transport, Inc., 70 F. 3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). "The major grounds justifying reconsideration are an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Hinds County, Miss. v. Wachovia Bank N.A., 708 F. Supp. 2d 348, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Reconsideration is not a proper tool to repackage and relitigate arguments and issues already considered by the court in deciding the original motion. Id.; United States v. Gross, 2002 WL 32096592, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2002). Nor is it proper to raise new arguments and issues. Gross, 2002 WL 32096592 at *4.

Plaintiff has made no showing of a change in the controlling law or the need to correct a clear error or to prevent manifest injustice. He has presented no new evidence of legal arguments in support of his motion; rather, he seeks to relitigate issues previously resolved by this Court. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied.

CONCLUSION

SO ORDERED.

DORA L. IRIZARRY United States District Judge


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.