Orakwue v. City of New York et al

Filing 62

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. (Doc. No. 56), and to suspend indefinitely the proceedings before the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 61). The Clerk of Court is directed to send Orakwue a copy of this Memorandum and Order by overnight mail for Saturday delivery to 100 Wall Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10005, which is the address listed for him on the docket. The Clerk of Court is further directed to note the mailing and corresponding tracking number on the docket.This action is recommitted to Magistrate Judge Scanlon for all pre-trial purposes, including supervision of discovery. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 4/4/2014. (Mauskopf, Roslynn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------X
OBI ORAKWUE,
Plaintiff,
- against -

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
11-CV-6183 (RRM) (VMS)

CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,

Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------X
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge.
On December 20, 2011, pro se plaintiff Obi Orakwue brought this action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants City of New York and Police Officer Victoria DeWitt. On
September 25, 2013, following full briefing, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order granting
defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), and partially granting Orakwue’s request to file an amended complaint insofar as
allowing him to proceed with two claims of malicious prosecution.1 (Doc. No. 53.) The Court
later granted Orakwue’s request for an extension of time to move for reconsideration (11/7/13
Order), whereupon Orakwue filed a motion to that effect on November 25, 2013. (Doc. No. 56.)
On November 29, 2013, the defense filed a letter opposing reconsideration. (Doc. No. 57.)
While this motion was pending, all pre-trial proceedings properly continued before
Magistrate Judge Scanlon. On December 26, 2013, Judge Scanlon ordered the parties to submit
a joint status report by March 13, 2014, and scheduled a telephone status conference for March
18, 2014. (12/26/13 Order.) By letter dated March 13th, defendants related their “several”
unsuccessful attempts – over the course of multiple days – to contact Orakwue by telephone;

1

The Court terminated Police Officer DeWitt as a defendant, and added three new police officers –
Willian, Rampersand, and Centurion – as defendants.

Orakwue’s phone number indicated that he was not accepting incoming calls. Defendants
further noted that Orakwue had not complied with Judge Scanlon’s November 6, 2013 Order to
serve the three newly-named individual defendants. (Doc. No. 59.)
In a docket entry on the following day, March 14, 2014, Judge Scanlon ordered Orakwue
to inform defense counsel of Orakwue’s correct phone number, and the judge confirmed the
March 18th phone conference. (3/14/14 Order.) Nonetheless Orakwue failed to participate in
that March 18th conference. Judge Scanlon subsequently received a letter from Orakwue, dated
March 18th, stating his intention not to attend that conference for various reasons, including that
he was supposedly recuperating from the “mental agony” he endured during a previous
conference before Judge Scanlon. (Doc. No. 60.)
In an Order on March 20, 2014, Judge Scanlon stated that Orakwue’s proffered reasons
for declining to attend the March 18th conference did not excuse his absence, and warned him
that his continuing failure to participate in the litigation could result in dismissal of the lawsuit.
Judge Scanlon scheduled a conference for April 8, 2014, ordered Orakwue to advise the Court by
March 31st whether he would be attending by telephone or in-person, and directed Orakwue to
file proof of service by March 31st as to the three new defendant-officers. (3/20/14 Order.)
By March 31, 2013, Orakwue had neither notified Judge Scanlon of whether he would be
appearing by telephone or in-person, nor filed the required proof of service. Instead, Orakwue
filed a letter on March 31st requesting that this Court issue an order “indefinitely suspend[ing]”
the proceedings that Judge Scanlon had scheduled for April 8th until the Court decides his
reconsideration motion. (Doc. No. 61.)
For the reasons set forth below, Orakwue’s motion to reconsider, as well as his request to
suspend the April 8th conference before the Magistrate Judge, are both DENIED.

2

DISCUSSION
I.

Motion for Reconsideration
Under narrow circumstances, Local Civil Rule 6.3 permits a court to reconsider a final

judgment or order. See E.D. & S.D.N.Y. Civ. R. 6.3. The standard for granting reconsideration
is “strict.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Such a motion will be
denied unless the movant can identify “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.” Id. (citations omitted); see E.D. & S.D.N.Y. Civ. R. 6.3 (requiring moving party to “set[]
forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the Court has
overlooked”). A motion for reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the district
court. Aczel v. Labonia, 584 F.3d 52, 61 (2d Cir. 2009).
Orakwue’s motion for reconsideration fails to satisfy this strict standard. Orakwue
criticizes the Court’s decision as “flooded with errors and encapsulated by palpably deliberate
omissions” (Doc. No. 56 at 2) –without ever stating any factual or legal basis for this assertion.
Orakwue also reflects on the difficulty of judging, and on his evolving understanding of the
American criminal justice system. (Id. at 3.) Again, though, nowhere in the motion does
Orakwue refer to any facts or controlling law that the Court overlooked in rendering its decision.
Although Orakwue does compare the Court’s decision to an opinion issued by a New York State
Court of Claims judge in a related lawsuit (id. at 2–3), that opinion in no way supports his bid for
reconsideration. If anything, as defendants emphasize (Doc. No. 57 at 2), the Court of Claims
opinion tends only to undermine the grounds for Orakwue’s remaining malicious prosecution
action.

3

In short, Orakwue apparently seeks only to re-litigate issues that have already been
decided, and does not proffer any facts or law that call into question the factual or legal
soundness of the Court’s September 25th Memorandum and Order.
II.

Request to “Indefinitely Suspend” the April 8, 2014 Conference
Orakwue also asks this Court to “indefinitely suspend” the proceedings to be held before

Judge Scanlon on April 8, 2014. Orakwue argues, without any legal support, that his motion to
reconsider places the discovery process – and all “conferences and activities deriving mandates”
from this Court’s underlying September 25th Memorandum and Order – “on hold” until the
Court decides the reconsideration motion. (Doc. No. 61 at 2–4.) Orakwue provides no legal
authority to support his assertion that discovery must be halted pending decision on the
reconsideration motion. Furthermore, the Court has denied the reconsideration motion in this
Memorandum and Order.
Orakwue’s efforts to have this Court stay or otherwise order a halt to any proceedings
before the Magistrate Judge are wholly without merit. As the assigned Magistrate Judge, and
under Local Rule 72.2, Magistrate Judge Scanlon has full authority to conduct all pre-trial
proceedings in this matter. Orkawue has previously been warned that his failure to participate in
this litigation, including attending the April 8th conference and otherwise complying with any
orders of the Magistrate Judge, may result in the award of sanctions, including dismissal of the
lawsuit with prejudice.

4

CONCLUSION
Orakwue’s motions for reconsideration (Doc. No. 56), and to suspend indefinitely the
proceedings before the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 61), are DENIED.
The Clerk of Court is directed to send Orakwue a copy of this Memorandum and Order
by overnight mail for Saturday delivery to 100 Wall Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10005,
which is the address listed for him on the docket. The Clerk of Court is further directed to note
the mailing and corresponding tracking number on the docket.
This action is recommitted to Magistrate Judge Scanlon for all pre-trial purposes,
including supervision of discovery.

SO ORDERED.

Roslynn R. Mauskopf

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
April 4, 2014

______________________________
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF
United States District Judge

5