Cerilli v. Malloy et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying 12 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 13 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 11/15/2018. (Smith, E)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

RAYMOND J. CERILLI,
Plaintiff,
v.
DANNEL P. MALLOY, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-2085 (SRU)

RULING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff Raymond J. Cerilli (“Cerilli”), currently confined at MacDougall-Walker
Correctional Institution in Suffield, Connecticut, filed this case pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On January 18, 2017, the Court denied Cerilli’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis under the
three-strikes provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and directed
Cerilli to tender the filing fee. On March 1, 2017, the Court filed an order dismissing this case
because Cerilli failed to tender the filing fee. On September 10, 2018, and September 26, 2018,
Cerilli filed motions for reconsideration seeking to reopen this case as well as several others.
Motions for reconsideration must be filed and served within fourteen days from the filing
of the decision or order from which relief is sought. D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(c)1. The order
dismissing this case was entered on March 1, 2017. Thus, Cerilli has filed his motions over
eighteen months too late. The motions for reconsideration are denied as untimely filed.
Even if his motion were timely, relief should be 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 Oparah v. New York City
Dep’t of Educ., 670 F. App’x 25, 26 (2d Cir. 2016) (citing 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 Schrader, 70 F.3d at 257; Waller v. City of Middletown,
89 F. Supp. 3d 279, 282 (D. Conn. 2015).
In the ruling denying in forma pauperis status, the Court explained that the only
exception to the three-strikes provision is if Cerilli was in imminent danger of serious physical
injury from the defendants at the time he filed this action. ECF No. 8 at 2. The Court noted that
the complaint concerned Cerilli’s medical care for an injury that occurred at a different
correctional facility. Because he was no longer confined in the same correctional facility as any
defendant, the Court concluded that Cerilli did not meet the exception. Id. at 3. In his motions
for reconsideration, Cerilli does not identify any law or facts that the Court overlooked when
reaching that decision and dismissing the complaint. Thus, reconsideration would not be
warranted.
Cerilli’s motions for reconsideration [ECF Nos. 12, 13] are DENIED.
So ordered.
Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 15th day of November 2018.
/s/ STEFAN R. UNDERHILL
Stefan R. Underhill
United States District Judge