Melvin v. Miller et al

Filing 100

ORDER denying 66 Motion for Reconsideration. See attached ruling and order. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Smith on July 11, 2011. (Hyne, J.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

MARTIN MELVIN
PRISONER
CASE NO. 3:09-cv-1612 (CFD)(TPS)

v.

CTO MILLER, ET AL.
RULING AND ORDER
Pending before the court is a letter filed by the plaintiff.
Despite orders issued by the court on February 22, 2010, March 1,
2010, and July 20, 2010, the plaintiff continues to send letters
addressed to the undersigned instead of filing properly captioned
motions.

In the present letter addressed, the plaintiff claims

that he inadvertently forgot to include a copy of a certificate of
service indicating that he had mailed a motion to compel dated
September 23, 2010, to counsel for the defendants.

On October 15,

2010, the court denied the motion to compel without prejudice
because the plaintiff had not attached a certificate of service
indicating that he had mailed a copy of the motion to compel to
both attorneys representing the defendants.

In the motion to

compel, the plaintiff sought a court order directing counsel for
the defendants

to

identify

mentioned in the complaint.

the

Jane

and

John

Doe

defendants

On October 29, 2010, the court denied

the plaintiff’s letter seeking reconsideration of that ruling on
the ground that the plaintiff had still not demonstrated that he

had served the motion to compel on both attorneys of record.

The

plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the court’s ruling denying
his letter motion for reconsideration of the order denying the
September 23, 2010, motion to compel without prejudice.
There are three grounds that justify granting a motion for
reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2)
the availability of newly discovered evidence; and (3) the need to
correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Virgin Atl.
Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir.
1992).

A court should not grant a motion for reconsideration if

“the moving party seeks solely to re-litigate an issue already
decided.”

Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir.

1995). Thus, the standard governing motions 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 . . . that might reasonably be expected
to alter the conclusion reached by the court.“

Id.

The plaintiff concedes that he did not submit the certificate
of service when he filed his motion to compel in September 2010, or
when he sent his first letter to the court in October 2010, seeking
reconsideration of the ruling denying without prejudice the motion
to compel.

Thus, the plaintiff has not pointed to any data the

court overlooked when it ruled on the motion to compel or the first
letter motion for reconsideration.

2

Accordingly, the second letter

motion for reconsideration [dkt. # 66] of the court’s ruling on the
first motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Furthermore, the court
will not construe this letter as a renewed motion to compel because
the defendants have since permitted the plaintiff to view the
videotape of the June 2009 incident and have assisted him in
determining the identities of the John and Jane Doe defendants
listed in the complaint.
The plaintiff is on notice that the Clerk’s Office will not
accept letters addressed to the undersigned or Judge Droney seeking
relief related to this action.

In view of the many motions that

the plaintiff has filed in this matter, it is clear that he is
well-versed in how to file a properly captioned motion seeking
relief.

Thus, there is no need for the plaintiff to be sending

letters directed to the undersigned or Judge Droney.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut, this 11th day of July, 2011.
/s/ Thomas P. Smith
Thomas P. Smith
United States Magistrate Judge

3