Michael Hill, pro se 90-B-0732 Southport Correctional Facility Pine City, NY, for plaintiff.
J. Richard Benitez, A.A.G., New York State Attorney General's Office, Rochester, NY, for defendants.
DECISION & ORDER
CHARLES J. SIRAGUSA, District Judge.
This prisoners' rights case is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration filed October 17, 2013, ECF No. 58. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied.
Michael Hill ("Plaintiff"), a prison inmate currently in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"), brought a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against DOCCS employees ("Defendants") for alleged violations of his First Amendment constitutional rights in connection with the way his mail was handled while he was incarcerated at Southport Correctional Facility ("Southport"). On January 11, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety. ECF No. 47. On February 8, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the summary judgment decision. ECF No. 52.
On July 17, 2013, the Second Circuit dismissed Plaintiff's appeal because it "lacked an arguable basis in law or fact." ECF No. 57. On October 17, 2013, Plaintiff filed a second motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment decision, and in the alternative requested an evidentiary hearing to "marshal the facts stated on the face of the complaint overlooked by the court unreasonably."
STANDARDS OF LAW
As the Fifth Circuit has recognized, "[t]here is no motion for reconsideration' in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." See Hamilton Plaintiffs v. Williams Plaintiffs, 147 F.3d 37, 371 n. 10 (5th Cir. 1998). Since the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions for reconsideration, such a motion may be construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). See Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989).
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.... [A] motion to reconsider should not be granted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided.
Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995).
Further, "Rule 60(b) is designed to strike a balance between serving the ends of justice and preserving the finality of judgments. A motion for relief from judgment is generally not favored and is properly granted only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances." Freedom, N.Y., Inc. v. United States, 438 ...