United States District Court, N.D. New York
DECISION AND ORDER
J. McAvoy Senior United States District Judge.
Frank Dinehart Langdon and Grant Dinehart Langdon commenced
the instant action against Defendant Columbia County, former
Sheriff Paul Proper, Jr., Carl Whitbeck, Jason Shaw, and
District Attorney Paul Czajka, on July 17, 2013, asserting
claims for false arrest and damage to their reputation.
See dkt. # 1. The facts of this case arise out of an
arrest of Frank Langdon in June 1987 in connection with a
fire at Bull Spring Farm. On September 16, 2013, this Court
granted Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice.
See dkt. # 26. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
Court's decision on January 23, 2014. See dkt. #
40. Thereafter, the Court granted Defendants' motion for
attorneys fees. See dkt. # 41.
the Court entered its decision on attorneys fees, Plaintiff
Grant Langdon has moved the Court for various relief,
including attorneys fees, reconsideration and
re-reconsideration of various orders. See dkt. #s
42, 44, 50, 75, 76. Grant Langdon has also repeatedly written
to the Court and other court officials regarding the case and
asserting that the Court's conclusions in this matter
were unfair, contrary to law, and factually incorrect.
See dkt. #s 58-70, 72-73.
Grant Langdon filed two motions for reconsideration in April
and May 2018. See dkt. #s 75-76. The Court denied
those motions. See dkt. # 78. In denying the motion,
the Court warned the Plaintiff that continued attempts to
re-litigate matters that had been decided would expose him to
Plaintiffs' litigation of this matter has been
unsuccessful. The Court earlier determined the lawsuit to be
frivolous and directed Plaintiffs to pay Defendants'
attorneys fees. Despite this clear finding by the Court,
Plaintiff Grant Langdon has repeatedly attempted to convince
the Court to alter its decision in this matter and has as
often been denied. No issues in this matter remain before the
Court, and repeated motions and correspondence with the Court
will not change that fact. Plaintiff is warned that continued
attempts to relitigate this matter would unnecessarily drain
scarce judicial resources. Additional motions for
reconsideration that rely on the same claims and evidence
will be dismissed and could be subject to sanctions from the
Dkt. # 78, at 2.
this warning, and with an acknowledgment that his actions
exposed him to a contempt finding, Plaintiff Grant Langdon
filed another motion for reconsideration of the Court's
order dismissing the case on December 23, 2019. See
dkt. # 89. Previous to that filing, Plaintiff sent a number
of letters to the Court and to an attorney who had
represented a defendant in one of his lawsuits. See
dkt. #s 85-87. These letters discussed the facts on which the
lawsuit is based, facts which have been litigated for decades
in this court and in other fora. Plaintiff has obviously
disregarded the Court's directive to cease filing motions
for reconsideration and has exposed himself to contempt
Court will first dispose of Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration. When a party files a motion for
reconsideration, “[t]he standard for granting such a
motion 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
Transp., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Such a motion
is “not a vehicle for relitigating old issues,
presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing
on the merits, or otherwise taking ‘a second bite at
the apple[.]'” Analytical Surveys, Inc. v.
Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir. 2012)
(quoting Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 144
(2d Cir. 1998)). Reconsideration should be granted when the
moving party shows “‘an intervening change in
controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the
need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.'” Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v.
Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir.
1992) (quoting 18 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper,
Federal Practice & Procedure § 4478 at 790).
as in his other motions for reconsideration, has not stated
any basis for altering the Court's original decision. He
simply restates the arguments he has made for decades. The
motion will therefore be denied.
Court also finds that Defendant is in contempt of Court for
his continual attempts to re-litigate a case that has been
concluded and for his defiance of the Court's order
directing him to cease such filings. As sanction for that
contempt, which has wasted judicial time and resources, the
Court will direct the Clerk of Court to disregard any future
filings in this matter. “A district court may, in its
discretion, impose sanctions against litigants who abuse the
judicial process.” Shaf ii v. British Airways,
PLC, 83 F.3d 566, 571 (2d Cir. 1996). The Court finds
that Plaintiffs repeated filings in this matter have abused
the judicial process. The Court has explained to the
Plaintiff that the case is over, that no attempt to reopen
the matter will succeed, and that continuing to do so is a
contumacious act. His continued filing of papers in this case
is an abuse of process that puts an unnecessary burden on the
Court and other parties to this matter. No filings by
Plaintiff in this case, no matter how they are titled or what
relief they seek, shall be entered on the docket.
motion for reconsideration, dkt. # 89, is hereby
DENIED. The Clerk of Court is hereby
DIRECTED to stop accepting filings from
Plaintiff Grant Dinehart Langdon in this matter.
Court will take an additional action. “The filing of
repetitive and frivolous suits constitutes the type of abuse
for which an injunction forbidding future litigation may be
an appropriate sanction.” Id. The Court will
therefore forward this opinion to the Chief Judge of the
District and recommend that he issue to Plaintiff Grant D.
Langdon an Order to Show Cause why an order permanently
enjoining him from filing a pleading or document of any kind
in the District without leave of Court should not be issued.