Lee v. PO Torres et al

Filing 105

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re 101 : The Court's 1/9/13 Order ruled on motions falling into Rule 58(a)'s exceptions; thus, the judgment need not be set out in a separate document. Accordingly, plaintiff's request is denied. Ordered by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 2/25/2013. (Fernandez, Erica) Modified on 2/26/2013 (Fernandez, Erica).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------)(
DENNIS LEE,
Plaintiff,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
11-cv-2659 (CBA) (MDG)

-againstP.O. TORRES, Tax Registry No. 937644 of the
City of New York in his Official Capacity, The
CITY of NEW YORK, DEPARTMENT OF
INSURANCE of the STATE of NEW YORK,
DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION ofthe STATE
OF NEW YORK, WILLIAM BROOKS, Hearing
Officer for the Department of Education of the
State of New York, in his Official Capacity,
LAURETTE HARRIS of VESID, in her Official
Capacity, MARK WEINSTEIN of VESID in his
Official Capacity, BRIAN ALVARADO of
VESID in his Official Capacity, JONA
ASPERGER of VESID in her Official Capacity,
ANGELA LOCKHART of VESID in her
Official Capacity, The METORPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (MTA),
YORK
CITY
HOUSING
THE
NEW
AUTHORITY, G.M. McRAE of the NYCHA in
her Official Capacity, MONIQUE LEBRON of
the NYCHA in her Official Capacity.
Defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------)(
AMON, Chief United States District Judge.

On June 2, 2011, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging a wide-ranging conspiracy to violate
his constitutional rights. On May 11, 2012 the Court dismissed the plaintiffs complaint in its
entirety on the grounds that the conspiracy allegations were "too vague, disjointed, and
implausible to state a plausible claim for federal relief." (DE 93 at 8 ("May 11, 2012 Order").)
The Court also denied the plaintiffs motion to add additional defendants to this action. The

judgment in the Court's May 11, 2012 Order was set out on a separate document in compliance
with Rule 58(a). (DE 94.)
On May 14, 2012, the plaintiff filed a "Motion under Rule 52(a)(2) and Rule 52(b) of the
FRCP for findings and conclusions by the Court." Noting that it was not required to make such
findings and conclusions when ruling on a motion made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, as was
the case in the May 11 Order, and that the May 11 Order specified its reasons for dismissing
plaintiffs complaint, the Court denied plaintiff's request for additional findings. The Court then
construed plaintiff's motion as one to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) and denied the motion. (DE 100 ("January 9, 2013 Order").)
On January 16, 2013, plaintiff requested pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(d) that judgment
in the Court's January 9, 2013 Order be set out in a separate document as required by Rule 58(a).
Rule 58(a), however, specifies that a separate document is not required for an order disposing of
a motion to amend or make additional findings under Rule 52(b) or to alter or amend the
judgment under Rule 59. Plaintiff nonetheless argues that Rule 58(a)'s separate-document
requirement applies because this action involved multiple claims and parties. He cites to Rule
54(b) in support.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) states, in relevant part:
When an action presents more than one claim for relief ... or when multiple
parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or
more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines
that there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision,
however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and
liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the
claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment
adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.
Plaintiff's argument is unavailing. Rule 54(b) instructs when a court may direct entry of a final
judgment on less than all of the issues in a case and has no bearing on a separate-document
2

requirement. As Rule 58(a) makes clear, whether a judgment must be set out in a separate
document depends not on the number of claims or parties in an action but on the type of motion
involved. The Court's January 9, 2013 Order ruled on motions falling into Rule 58(a)'s
exceptions; thus, the judgment need not be set out in a separate document. Accordingly,
plaintiffs request is denied.

SO ORDERED.

s/Carol Bagley Amon
7

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

¥·

~,2013

3