Rogue v. Arnone et al

Filing 12

PRISCS - ORDER denying 10 Motion to Reopen Case; denying 11 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 11 Motion to Amend/Correct (Corriette, M.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

RICHARD ROGUE,
Plaintiff,
v.
LEO ARNONE, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

PRISONER
Case No. 3:12-cv-1179 (JBA)

RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
The plaintiff commenced this action against defendants Leo
Arnone, John Tarascio, Bradway, Burke and Kane.

He alleges that

the defendants have denied his constitutional right of access to
the courts and a law library.

On September 17, 2012, the court

filed an Initial Review Order dismissing the complaint.
#8.

See Doc.

The plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of that order and

leave to reopen this case and file an amended complaint.

For the

reasons that follow, the plaintiff’s motions are denied.
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 Schrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257

(2d Cir. 1995).

A motion for reconsideration may not be used to

relitigate an issue the court already has decided.

See 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).
The plaintiff based his claim of denial of access to the
courts on the lack of a law library at the correctional facility.
As the court explained, the plaintiff does not have a
constitutional right to a law library.

He only is entitled to

assistance in filing meaningful legal papers.
Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996).

See Lewis v.

The court noted that the

Connecticut Department of Correction has elected to provide legal
assistance through the Inmates’ Legal Assistance Program for
civil matters and the Office of the Public Defender for criminal
matters.
The plaintiff has not identified any controlling decisions
or data overlooked by the court.

Thus, reconsideration of the

dismissal of this case, reopening the case and amending the
complaint are not warranted.
The plaintiff’s motions to reopen [Doc. #10] and for
reconsideration and to amend [Doc. #11] are DENIED.
So ordered this 27th day of November 2012, at New Haven,
Connecticut.
/s/
Janet Bond Arterton
United States District Judge

2