Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. King

United States District Court, S.D. New York

September 19, 2014

ANDREW WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
JEAN G. KING, Deputy Superintendent of Program (DSP), IMAM ABDUL LATIF, Facility Muslim Chaplain, LT. W. MEAD, C.O. R. HUGGLER, and LT. S. KATZ, Defendants

Page 390

For Plaintiff: Rebecca Lauren Rettig, Esq., Jacqueline Dorothy Harrington, Esq., Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY.

For Defendants: Inna Ringh, Michael J. Keane, Jeb Harben, Assistant Attorneys General, Office of the New York State Attorney General, New York, NY.

Page 391

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Shira A. Scheindlin, United States District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

In an Opinion and Order dated August 11, 2014 (" August 11 Order" ), I granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment.[1] Williams now requests reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of his First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Katz and Huggler. Additionally, Williams seeks confirmation that the trier of fact will hear his retaliation claims against Defendants King and Mead relating to the 2010 disciplinary hearing. In a joint letter to the Court dated September 11, 2014, the parties stated their respective positions.[2]

For the following reasons, summary judgment is granted as to Katz and Huggler on the retaliation claims relating to the May 2010 cell search. Additionally, Williams's retaliation claims relating to the February 2013 cell search and the 2010 disciplinary hearing are hereby dismissed.

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION STANDARD

" 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." [3] Reconsideration of a court's previous order is " an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources." [4] Typical grounds for reconsideration include " an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." [5]

III. DISCUSSION

A. Williams's Factual Clarifications Are Adopted, But Do Not Affect the August 11 Order

Williams asserts that the August 11 Order dismissing the 2010 retaliation claims against Katz ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.