United States District Court, N.D. New York
ROBERT L. DUNN, SR., Plaintiff,
INVESTIGATOR TODD, NYS DOCCS Office of Special Investigations, PLTS. BRYANT, Civilian Hearing Officer, C.O. DOBBINS, Correction Officer, Mid-State Correctional Facility, and DWIGHT LESTER, Inmate, Defendants.
L. DUNN, SR., Plaintiff, pro se.
DECISION AND ORDER
N. HURD United States District Judge.
January 2017, pro se plaintiff Robert L. Dunn, Sr.
("Dunn" or "plaintiff") commenced this
civil rights action asserting claims arising out of his
confinement at Mid-State Correctional Facility
("Mid-State C.F."). Dkt. No. 1
Order filed on July 10, 2017 (the "July Order"),
the sufficiency of Dunn's complaint was reviewed in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. Dkt. No. 20. Based upon that review, it was determined
that plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted and was therefore subject to
dismissal. Id. In addition, the July Order denied
plaintiff's motion (1) for the appointment of counsel,
(2) for an order allowing him to communicate with a fellow
inmate, and (3) for the return of his original paperwork.
Id. at 20-23. However, in light of his pro se
status, the July Order also permitted plaintiff an
opportunity to submit an amended complaint. Id. at
pending is Dunn's motion for reconsideration of portions
of the July 2017 Order. Dkt. No. 21.
court may justifiably reconsider its previous ruling if: (1)
there is an intervening change in the 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) (citing Doe v. New
York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789
(2d Cir. 1983)).
standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is
strict[.]" Shrader v. CSX Transportation, 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."
Id. 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).
motion for reconsideration, Dunn asserts that he
"disagrees" with the July Order's decision to
dismiss his complaint and deny his motion for counsel. Dkt.
No. 21 at 1. Plaintiff did not take advantage of his
opportunity to file an amended complaint. Rather, he filed
this motion for reconsideration seeking to reinstate all of
his claims against all previously named defendants.
See Dkt. No. 21. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of
the July Order to recognize and require a response to these
claims. See id., generally.
has not cited to any caselaw which would mandate that the
prior decision be vacated. Nor has he identified an
intervening change in controlling law or articulated any
clear legal error. While plaintiff disagrees with the prior
order, plaintiff has not made any showing that
reconsideration of the order is warranted. See, e.g.,
Banco de Seguros Del Estado v. Mut. Marine Offices,
Inc., 230 F.Supp.2d 427, 431 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (denying
motion for reconsideration where movant “reargue[d] the
points it made during the initial briefing and . . .
explain[ed] to the Court how its analysis is
‘erroneous' ”); U.S. v. Delvi,
S1291CR74, 2004 WL 235211, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2004)
(denying motion for reconsideration where movant
"point[ed] to no facts or law that the Court overlooked
in reaching its conclusion, and instead simply reiterate[d]
the facts and arguments that the Court already considered and
rejected"). Therefore, plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration (Dkt. No. 21) is denied.
EXTENSION OF TIME TO SUBMIT AMENDED
addition to the motion for reconsideration, Dunn indicates
that he intends to file an amended complaint. See
Dkt. No. 21 at 2. In light of plaintiff's pro se status,
he will be granted an extension of time to comply with the
July Order. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide
plaintiff with ...