Leniart v. Bundy et al

Filing 101

RULING denying #96 Motion for Reconsideration but grants plaintiffs Motion for Articulation. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 1/9/2012. (Oliver, T.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
GEORGE LENIART,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. WILLIAM BUNDY, et al.
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:09-CV-09 (JCH)

JANUARY 9, 2012

RULING RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND
ARTICULATION (Doc. No. 96)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied. A motion for reconsideration
may be granted where the movant demonstrates: 1) an intervening change in controlling
law; 2) the availability of newly discovered evidence; or 3) the need to correct clear error
or prevent manifest injustice. Local Rules of Civ. P. 7(c); Virgin Atl. Airways , Ltd. v.
Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992). The court does not find that
the plaintiff has met any of these standards.
The Motion to Articulate is granted. This court understands the Ruling (Doc. No.
92) to state the plaintiff may pursue his claim in another lawsuit. This court does not
understand that Ruling to state any view of defenses to that claim. That is for the court
before whom the claim is pled to decide.
Accordingly, the court denies plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, but grants
plaintiff’s Motion for Articulation (Doc. No. 96).

1

SO ORDERED.

Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 9th day of January, 2012.

/s/ Janet C. Hall
Janet C. Hall
United States District Judge

2