Torrez v. Mulligan et al

Filing 37

ORDER denying 33 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 9/5/17. (Kaas, E.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

JOSE ANTHONY TORREZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM MULLIGAN, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-677 (SRU)

RULING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff Jose Anthony Torrez (“Torrez”), currently confined at Northern Correctional
Institution (“Northern”) in Somers, Connecticut, filed this case pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On July 31, 2017, I issued an order denying several of Torrez’ motions, including two motions
for appointment of counsel. He now seeks reconsideration of the portion of the ruling denying
the motions for appointment of counsel.
Motions for reconsideration must be filed and served within seven days from the filing of
the decision or order from which relief is sought. D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(c)(1). The order
denying Torrez’ motions for appointment of counsel was filed on July 31, 2017, and mailed to
Torrez that same day. Torrez did not file his motion for reconsideration until August 18, 2017,
eleven days too late. Accordingly, the motion could be 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).
Torrez does not address my order. Instead, he appears to have refiled one of his prior
motions with additional detail. In the order, I noted that Torrez had identified several law firms
denying representation and stated that Inmates’ Legal Aid Program cannot represent him. I
explained that Inmates’ Legal Aid Program attorneys can assist him by providing advice
regarding discovery and responding to dispositive motions. I concluded that, because Torrez had
not shown that such assistance was insufficient at this stage of litigation, I could not determine
whether Torrez was unable to obtain legal assistance on his own. ECF No. 28 at 1-2.
Torrez has not addressed that point or submitted any letters from Inmates’ Legal Aid
Program regarding assistance with this case. In addition, one of the letters Torrez submitted to
show that he is unable to obtain representation in this case references a claim against the
Department of Children and Families. ECF No. 33 at 4. This case includes no such claim.
Thus, Torrez has identified no evidence I overlooked regarding his failure to show that he cannot
obtain legal assistance on his own either from a law firm or Inmates’ Legal Aid Program. I also
noted in the ruling that, because the defendants had not responded to the complaint, I was unable
to assess the merits of Torrez’ claims. Since the order was filed, the defendants have filed their
answer. Because the answer merely denies the allegations, I still am unable to assess the merit of
the claims. Thus, reconsideration of the decision is not warranted.
Torrez’ motion for reconsideration [ECF No. 33] is denied. Torrez may file a new
motion for appointment of counsel provided he can demonstrate an inability to obtain legal
assistance in this case and likely merit to his claim.
SO ORDERED this 5th day of September 2017 at Bridgeport, Connecticut.

/s/ STEFAN R. UNDERHILL
Stefan R. Underhill
United States District Judge