Keita et al v. Liberty Mutual Insurance et al
MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying 9 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(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. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,444-45, 82 S. Ct. 917, 920-21, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962). Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 12/4/2017. (Williams, Erica)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE,CON
EDISON OF NEW YORK,STATE FARM
NYC PUBLIC ADVOCATE OFFICE,
Pro se plaintiff Mohammed Keita's motion, filed November 13,2017, seeks
reconsideration ofthe Court's November 6,2017 order dismissing his complaint without
prejudice for lack ofsubject matter jurisdiction. The motion is denied.
Keita makes no showing of any misapprehension by the Court of facts or law at the time
of its ruling, which would require the Court to revisit its prior decision. See Shrader v. CSX
Transp., Inc.,70 F.3d 255,257(2d Cir. 1995).
The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal would not be
taken in good faith, and, therefore, informa pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any
appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,444-45, 82 S. Ct. 917,920-21,8 L. Ed. 2d
The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain this case on the closed docket.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
December 4, 2017
s/ Eric N. Vitaliano
ERIC N. VITALIANO
United States District Judge
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?