Isasi v. U. S. Governor et al

Filing 84

ORDER: Plaintiff's motion filed under docket entries 81, 82 and 83 is hereby denied. Because plaintiff has abused the Court's resources, no further submissions shall be accepted for filing under this docket number. The Clerk of Court is directed to return to plaintiff any new submissions under this docket number without filing, with the exception of a notice of appeal. I certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. C/M with appeals package. Ordered by Judge Edward R. Korman on 12/12/2012. (Chee, Alvin)

:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------l{
RICHARD ISASI,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ORDER
Plaintiff,
-against-

03 CV 2912 (ERK)

U.S. GOVERNOR, et aI.,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------l{
KORMAN, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Richard Isasi, an inmate currently incarcerated at Southport Correctional Facility,
filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 9, 2003, regarding
his el{tradition in 1997 from Mel{ico to New York. By order dated October 31, 2003 (the "1"
October Order"), I dismissed plaintiff s § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief
may be granted, Isasi v. U.S. Governor. et aI., No. 03-CV-2912 (ERK), slip op. at 4 (ED.N.Y. Oct.
31,2003), and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal by
mandate dated October 26,2004. Isasi v. U.S. Governor. et aI., Mandate, No. 04-0629-pr (2d Cir.
Oct. 26, 2004).
Background
Plaintiffhas filed numerous frivolous motions since this case has been closed. For el{ample,
on August 24, 2006, plaintiff filed his first motion to reconsider the 1" October Order, which I
denied by order dated October 25, 2006 (the "2nd October Order"), as plaintiff presented no basis for
reconsideration. Isasi v. U.S. Governor. et a!., No. 03-CV-2912 (ERK), slip op. at 3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct.
25,2006). In April 2007, plaintiff filed a motion seeking reimbursement ofthe filing fees he has
paid and reversal of the 2 nd October Order, which I also denied. See Isasi v. U.S. Governor, et a!.,
No. 03-CV-2912 (ERK), slip op. at 2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30,2007).

On May 31, 2007, plaintiff moved for an entry of default and a second request for
reconsideration of the Court's order dismissing the case, which I denied. See Isasi v. U.S. Governor.
et al., No. 03-CV-2912 (ERK), slip op. (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 5, 2007) (I also warned him that the further
filing of similar requests shal1 result in an order barring plaintiff from filing any other papers under
this docket number). Thereafter, in 2008 and 2009, plaintiff moved again for a default judgment,
attorney's fees and a "determination under Rule 54." On June 29, 2009, the Court denied these
motions and warned plaintiff again that he would be barred from filing further submissions under
this docket number. See Isasi v. u.S. Governor. et aI., No. 03-CV -2912 (ERK), slip op. (E.D.N.Y.
June 29, 2009). Plaintiff has failed to heed the Court's warnings and now moves for the third time
for reconsideration ofthe Court's order dismissing his case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Rule 60(bl
"The standard for granting such a motion [for reconsideration1is strict, and reconsideration
wil1 general1y 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 Transp .. Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995); see also
Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) (stating that Rule 60(b) motions
request "extraordinary judicial relief' and are general1y granted only in "exceptional circumstances").
Here, plaintiff has not shown that he is entitled to Rule 60(b) relief. Instead, plaintiffs motion is
based on several state court decisions denying his motions for post-conviction relief and provides
no basis for reconsideration. See PI. Motion, Unmarked Exhibits. Final1y, the motion - filed nearly
ten years after the judgment was entered - is untimely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(l). Accordingly,
plaintiffs motion filed under docket entries 81, 82 and 83 is hereby denied.

2

Conclusion
Accordingly, plaintiffs motion filed under docket entries 81, 82 and 83 is hereby denied.
Because plaintiff has abused the Court's resources, no further submissions shall be accepted for
filing under this docket number. The Clerk of Court is directed to return to plaintiff any new
submissions under this docket number without filing, with the exception of a notice of appeal. I
certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19l5(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and
therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United
States, 369 U.S. 438, 444·45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.

/s/ Edward R. Korman
EDWARD R. KORMAN, U.S.DJ.

Dated: December 1Y,2012
Brooklyn, New York

3