Jordan v. Chiaroo et al
Filing
14
ORDER denying 11 Motion for Reconsideration filed by Victor L. Jordan, Sr. For the reasons described in the attached Ruling, Mr. Jordan's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 5/10/2024. (Rafla-Yuan, D)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
VICTOR L. JORDAN, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 3:24-CV-204 (VAB)
CHIAROO, et al.,
Defendants.
RULING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before the Court is Plaintiff Victor Jordan Sr.’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s
initial review order. (ECF No. 11). After careful consideration, that motion is DENIED.
I.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Jordan filed a pro se Complaint under § 1983, raising claims against prison officials
for tampering with or losing his legal materials. (ECF No. 1 at 5–9).
The Complaint did not clearly identify the nature of each claim or against whom each
claim was brought. See id. But construing it liberally, the Court determined that Mr. Jordan
raised (1) a Fourteenth Amendment lost property claim, (ECF No. 10 at 5); (2) a First
Amendment denial of access to the courts claim, id. at 6; and (3) a First Amendment interference
with legal mail claim. Id. at 8.
The Court dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment lost property claim and the First
Amendment denial of access to the courts claim with prejudice. Id. at 10. The Court dismissed
the First Amendment interference with legal mail claim without prejudice. Id. The Court
permitted Mr. Jordan to file an Amended Complaint repleading that claim by May 10, 2024. Id.
The Court has now extended that deadline to June 3, 2024, on Mr. Jordan’s motion. (ECF No.
13).
Mr. Jordan filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Initial Review Order
dismissing his first two claims with prejudice. (ECF No. 11). The Court denies that motion for
the following reasons.
II.
DISCUSSION
A. Motion for Reconsideration Standard
Rule 7(c) of the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut allows for the filing of motions “for reconsideration.” D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(c). The
Second Circuit has held that “[m]otions for reconsideration under [the District of Connecticut’s
Local Civil Rules] ... are as a practical matter the same thing as motions for amendment of
judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)—each seeks to reopen a district court’s decision on the
theory that the court made mistaken findings in the first instance.” City of Hartford v. Chase, 942
F.2d 130, 133 (2d Cir. 1991). In general, three grounds justify reconsideration: “an intervening
change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or
prevent manifest injustice.” Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd. v. National Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d
1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).
“A motion for reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the court.” Kregos
v. Latest Line, Inc., 951 F. Supp. 24, 26 (D. Conn. 1996). “The standard for granting [a motion
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, in other
words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader
v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). “Such motions must be narrowly
construed and strictly applied in order to discourage litigants from making repetitive arguments
2
on issues that have been thoroughly considered by the court.” Range Road Music, Inc. v. Music
Sales Corp., 90 F. Supp. 2d 390, 391–92 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
Accordingly, “[a] motion for reconsideration may not be used to plug gaps in an original
argument [,] to argue in the alternative once a decision has been made,” SPGGC, Inc. v.
Blumenthal, 408 F. Supp. 2d 87, 91 (D. Conn. 2006) (quotation omitted), “to relitigate old
matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry
of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n. 5 (2008) (quotation omitted).
B. Application of the motion for reconsideration standard to Mr. Jordan’s motion
for reconsideration.
Mr. Jordan raises several issues in his motion for reconsideration that are both within and
outside the scope of such a motion. The Court addresses both types of issues, though neither
moves the Court to reconsider its Initial Review Order.
i. Issues within the scope of a motion for reconsideration.
First, Mr. Jordan maintains that the Court “should have given [him] leave to amend the
entire complaint…” (ECF No. 11 at 1). This is within the scope of a motion for reconsideration
because it could “correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Virgin Atlantic Airways,
Ltd., 956 F.2d at 1255. Mr. Jordan cites two cases in support of his contention that the Court
should have allowed him to amend his entire complaint, as opposed to just one claim. See (ECF
No. 11 at 1) (citing Collymore v. Krystal Myers, RN, 74 F.4th 22 (2d Cir. 2023); Abbas v. Dixon,
480 F.3d 636 (2d Cir. 2007)). But neither case supports Mr. Jordan’s contention that if the Court
permits a plaintiff to amend one claim, it must permit a plaintiff to amend all claims.
3
Collymore concerned the sufficiency of a single Eighth Amendment claim. Collymore, 74
F.4th at 24. Abbas concerned a district court’s premature dismissal of a complaint containing
four claims that were dismissed because they were filed beyond the statute of limitations. Abbas,
480 F.3d at 638. Neither case held, as Mr. Jordan suggests, that if the Court permits a plaintiff to
amend one claim, it must allow him to amend all claims. Neither case touches on that subject.
Because Mr. Jordan points to no other case law holding that, this argument is without merit.
Secondly, Mr. Jordan also cites Abbas for the proposition that dismissals under section
1915A “must accord the inmate an opportunity to amend the complaint ‘unless the court can rule
out any possibility, however unlikely it might be, that an amended complaint would succeed in
stating a claim.’” (ECF No. 11 at 1) (citing Abbas, 480 F.3d at 639). This is also within the scope
of a motion for reconsideration because it could “correct a clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.” Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd., 956 F.2d at 1255. But the amendments that Mr. Jordan
suggests would still not “succeed in stating a claim.” Abbas, 480 F.3d at 639.
Mr. Jordan “acknowledge[s] that in [his] initial complaint, I failed to specify, certain
factors, and clear and precise facts, such as, the exact number of legal Boxes that were missing,
and the contents as well as my need of the material within those boxes.” (ECF No. 11 at 3). Mr.
Jordan explains how his legal boxes contained materials that would have assisted him in
preparing for one of his habeas trials, and that without these materials, he was unable to
successfully present evidence at these trials. See id. at 3, 5. While true that these facts were
omitted from Mr. Jordan’s Complaint, inclusion of these facts in the Complaint would not have
altered the Court’s decision.
4
The Court’s decision to dismiss Mr. Jordan’s Fourteenth Amendment claim did not rest
on the contents of his legal boxes. Rather, the Court determined that Mr. Jordan could not state a
plausible Fourteenth Amendment claim because there were adequate state post-deprivation
remedies that Mr. Jordan could pursue, which satisfied Mr. Jordan’s right to due process. See
(ECF No. 10 at 5-6). Therefore, an Amended Complaint containing additional facts describing
the contents of Mr. Jordan’s legal boxes would not have “succeed[ed] in stating a claim” under
the Fourteenth Amendment. Abbas, 480 F.3d at 639.
Mr. Jordan disputes that state post-deprivation remedies are adequate, see (ECF No. 11 at
4), but the Second Circuit has already spoken on that issue, see Riddick v. Semple, 731 F.App’x
11, 13-14 (2d Cir. 2018), and the District Court is bound by the Second Circuit’s decisions. See,
e.g., Greenidge v. Barnhart, No. 6:04-CV-0379, 2005 WL 357318, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 11,
2005) (quotation omitted) (noting “[i]t is well settled that a ‘federal district court is bound by the
rule of the circuit in which it is located,’ and the rule of the Second Circuit on the question
governs.”). Mr. Jordan has failed to allege in his motion for reconsideration “a clear error
or…manifest injustice.” Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd., 956 F.2d at 1255.
Accordingly, Mr. Jordan’s arguments within the scope of a motion for reconsideration
fail.
ii. Issues outside the scope of a motion for consideration.
Other issues raised in Mr. Jordan’s motion for reconsideration are outside the scope of
such motion. For instance, Mr. Jordan maintains there are claims he “failed to address, such as
1st[,] 4th[,] and 14th Amendment” claims “because [he] was not aware of precisely what claim,
or, cause was available.” (ECF No. 11 at 3). He maintains that his allegation that he was actively
5
litigating five separate cases “should have been enough, to reflect, my not being able to access
the court, and or defend myself.” Id. at 5. Mr. Jordan claims the loss of his legal boxes “was also
reflecting the long term intentional tampering, reading, copying, discarding, and or delaying and
destroying [his] legal work, in an attempt to prevent, complicate, and deter my legal processes,
Due process, [and] access to the courts, out of retaliation…” Id. at 6. Mr. Jordan then mentions,
“for the record,” that he had been denied proper medical and mental health care, that his ADA
rights had been violated, that he was falsely imprisoned in the RHU without due process, and
that prison officials reviewed, copied, removed, or destroyed documents in his legal boxes. Id. at
7-8.
These are all new claims. “A motion for reconsideration may be granted when a Court
overlooks claims, but it may not be used as a vehicle to assert new claims.” Randolph v. Agosh,
No. 919CV1161DNHTWD, 2020 WL 13801989, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2020) (citing Fann v.
Arnold, No. 14-CV-6187, 2016 WL 2858927, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. May 16, 2016) (citation omitted);
Gaind v. Cordero, 515 F. App’x 68 (2d Cir. 2013); Humbach v. Canon, No. 13-CV-2512, 2016
WL 3647639, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2016) (refusing to consider new claims asserted in
motion to reconsider)). If Mr. Jordan wanted to raise these claims, he could have raised them in
his Complaint. The Court will not consider new claims in the first instance in a motion for
reconsideration, nor will it reconsider its Initial Review Order in light of these new theories of
liability.
Mr. Jordan also alleges additional facts and argument regarding his First Amendment
denial of access to the courts claim. See (ECF No. 11 at 9). “[A] motion for reconsideration may
not be used to plug gaps in an original argument,” “to argue in the alternative once a decision has
6
been made,” SPGGC, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 408 F. Supp. 2d at 91, or “to relitigate old matters, or
to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of
judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co., 554 U.S. at 485 n. 5. Stated simply, “Motions to reconsider are
not ‘do-overs.’” Travelers Indem. Co. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., No. 12 CIV. 3040 (KBF),
2013 WL 12325152, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2013). Therefore, Mr. Jordan cannot use these
newly alleged facts and arguments to bolster claims that have already been dismissed.
Accordingly, Mr. Jordan’s arguments made outside of the scope of a motion for
reconsideration also fail.
III.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Jordan has failed to allege in his motion for reconsideration “a clear error
or…manifest injustice.” Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd., 956 F.2d at 1255. His other arguments are
outside of the scope of a motion for reconsideration.
Accordingly, his motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 11), is DENIED.
SO ORDERED at New Haven, Connecticut, this 10th day of May, 2024.
/s/ Victor A. Bolden
VICTOR A. BOLDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?