United States District Court, N.D. New York
CARMENCITA BRUNO, Plaintiff, Pro Se, Office of Cia Bruno, Howes Cave, NY,
MICHAEL J. MURPHY, ESQ., CARTER CONBOY, CASE, BLACKMORE, MALONEY & LAIRD, P.C., Albany, NY, Counsel for Defendants.
GLENN T. SUDDABY, District Judge.
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action by Carmencita Bruno ("Plaintiff") against various municipalities and municipal employees (collectively "Defendants"), is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's Decision and Order of February 20, 2014, which granted in part, and denied in part, Defendants' motions to dismiss, and denying Plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 56, 59.) For the reasons set for below, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion.
I. GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARD
Local Rule 7.1(g) of the Local Rules of Practice for this Court provides as follows, in pertinent part:
Motion for Reconsideration. Unless Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 otherwise governs, a party may file and serve a motion for reconsideration or reargument no later than FOURTEEN DAYS after the entry of the challenged judgment, order, or decree. All motions for reconsideration shall conform with the requirements set forth in L.R. 7.1(a)(1) and (2). The briefing schedule and return date applicable to motions for reconsideration shall conform to L.R. 7.1(b)(2).... The Court will decide motions for reconsideration or reargument on submission of the papers, without oral argument, unless the Court directs otherwise.
N.D.N.Y. L.R. 7.1(g) (emphasis in original).
Generally, a court may justifiably reconsider its previous ruling if " there has been an intervening change in controlling law,  there is new evidence, or  a need is shown to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice." United States v. Sanchez, 35 F.3d 673, 677 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 514, U.S. 1038 (1995); accord, Doe v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 864 (1983); 18B Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4478, at 670-691 (2d ed. 2002 & Supp. 2009). Such is the standard for motions for reconsideration filed under Local Rule 7.1(g) in this District. See, e.g., In re C-TC 9th Ave. P'ship, 182 B.R. 1, 3 (N.D.N.Y.1995) (McAvoy, C.J.); Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Pataki, 188 F.Supp.2d 223, 244 (N.D.N.Y.2002) (McCurn, S.J.); Sumner v. McCall, 103 F.Supp.2d 555, 558 (N.D.N.Y.2000) (Kahn, J.).
The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is strict. Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). A motion for reconsideration "should not be granted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided." Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257. Furthermore, a motion for reconsideration is not to be used for "presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple'...." Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1998).
II. PARTIES' BRIEFING ON THE MOTION
A. Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Chief
Generally, in support of her motion, Plaintiff argues that the Court should restore her federal PETS Act claim, her seizure claim under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, her takings claim under the Fifth Amendment, and her medical-indifference claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Court should grant her leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, for the following seven reasons. (Dkt. No. 59, Attach. 1.)
First, argues Plaintiff, the Court should have construed her claims extra-liberally out of special solicitude to her as a "member of a protected class, ...