Meyers v. Health and Hospitals Corporation
ORDER denying 21 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 22 Motion for Reconsideration Petitioners motions for reconsideration or to reopen the above-captioned case are denied. Ordered by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 7/23/2012. c/m to pro se plaintiff from chambers. (Shnider, Ruth)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NOT FOR PRINT OR
MAURICE MAYNARD MEYERS,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
-against12 CV 436 (CBA)
HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORP.,
AMON, Chief Judge:
On January 25, 2012, petitioner Colonel Maurice Maynard Meyers filed the instant pro
se petition seeking his release from Kings County Hospital Center (“KCHC”), where he was then
involuntarily retained and medicated over objection pursuant to § 9.33 of the New York Mental
Hygiene Law. By Order dated April 30, 2012, the Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss
the petition as moot, because petitioner had then been released from confinement. Petitioner has
now filed two motions seeking to reopen the case, dated June 12, 2012 and June 18, 2012, along
with a proposed amended complaint dated June 15, 2012. The motions are hereby denied.
The handwritten submissions are difficult to read. They appear to renew petitioner’s
challenges to New York State’s Mental Hygiene law and to his involuntary commitment. (See
June 12, 2012 Motion, ¶ D; June 15, 2012 Submission at 2.) The June 18, 2012 motion also
demands the closure of KCHC and seeks $400 million dollars in damages. (June 18 Motion, at
The standard for granting a motion to reconsider under either Rule 60(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Civil Rule 6.3 is a strict one. “[R]econsideration 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.” See Shrader v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257
(2d Cir. 1995).
Petitioner’s June 12, June, 15, and June 18, 2012 submissions fail to allege any
controlling legal arguments or facts that this Court overlooked. As the Court previously
explained, petitioner’s challenge to his earlier commitment is moot, as he was released from
confinement on March 23, 2012. Moreover, he still has not suggested any legal basis for
challenging the Mental Hygiene Law or closing the KCHC. Accordingly, petitioner’s motions to
reopen the instant case are denied.
The Court observes, however, that from documents attached to the June 18, 2012
submission, it appears that petitioner was involuntarily readmitted to a mental health facility on
May 24, 2012, and that medical staff have requested a new medication-over-objection order.
(See June 18, 2012 submission, Exhibits: Affirmation of Dr. Muhammad Islam, ¶¶ 3, 6; Justice
Anthony Cutrona’s June 8, 2012 Order to Show Cause on Medication Over Objection.) To the
extent that petitioner wishes to mount a new challenge to a new commitment order, he must file
a new petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Buthy v. Commissioner
of Office of Mental Health of N.Y.S., 818 F.2d 1046, 1051-52 (2d Cir. 1987) (petitioning for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2254 is the appropriate method for an individual to challenge
the fact or duration of his involuntary civil commitment to a state psychiatric institution).
Petitioner’s motions for reconsideration or to reopen the above-captioned case are denied.
Should he wish to challenge a current commitment order, he may file a new petition pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from
this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for
purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962)
CAROL BAGLEY AMON
Chief United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
July 23, 2012
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?