Carolina v. Pafumi et al

Filing 58

ORDER: The parties are directed to review the attached memorandum, which pertains to and is filed in accordance with the Court's Order denying 56 Motion for Reconsideration as substantively and procedurally deficient, see Dkt. 57. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 08/04/2017. (Lee, E.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

TYRONE DOUGLAS CAROLINA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MIKE PAFUMI, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:12-cv-163 (VLB)

RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [DKT. 56]
Plaintiff Tyrone Douglas Carolina seeks reconsideration of the ruling
granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the judgment entered in
this case. On April 17, 2013, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. See Doc. #39. Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed by mandate dated
September 15, 2015, as lacking an arguable basis in fact or law. See Doc. #55.
A motion for reconsideration must be filed within fourteen days from the
date of the decision for which reconsideration is sought. D. Conn. L. Civ. R.
7(c)1. Judgment entered in this case nearly four years before Plaintiff filed this
motion. Thus, the motion is denied as untimely filed.
Further, even if the motion were timely, reconsideration is not warranted.
Reconsideration will be granted only if the moving party can identify controlling
decisions or data that the Court overlooked and that would reasonably be
expected to alter the Court’s decision. See Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d
255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Any new evidence must be “truly newly discovered or
1

could not have been found by due diligence.”

Space Hunters, Inc. v. United

States, 500 F. App’x 76, 81 (2d Cir. 2012). A motion for reconsideration may not
be used to relitigate an issue the court already has decided. See Shrader, 70 F.3d
at 257; SPGGC, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 408 F. Supp. 2d 87, 91 (D. Conn. 2006), aff’d in
part and vacated in part on other grounds, 505 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff argues that the case was dismissed under the three strikes
provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff is
mistaken.

This case was decided on the merits.

See Doc. #39.

As Plaintiff

identifies no law or facts that the Court overlooked in the decision granting
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, reconsideration is not warranted.
As judgment has entered, the Court also considers Plaintiff’s motion under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which identifies several reasons for which a
party may be relieved from judgment. The only applicable section of the rule
would be in section 60(b)(6), the catch-all provision which encompasses any
reason justifying relief from judgment.
judgment,

Plaintiff

must

demonstrate

To prevail on a motion to reopen
the

existence

of

“exceptional

circumstances” warranting relief. See Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184,
191 (2d Cir. 2008); see also D’Angelo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 32 F. App’x
604, 605 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Material offered in support of a motion to vacate under
Rule 69(b)(6) must be highly convincing material.”).

Plaintiff, however, has

presented no evidence that exceptional circumstances exist in this case. In fact,
he has asserted no arguments relating to the merits of the claims asserted in this
2

case. Thus, relief under Rule 60(b) is not warranted.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [Doc. #56] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 4th day of August 2017, at Hartford, Connecticut.
/s/
__
Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge

3