Rodriguez v. Department of Social Security Administration

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Pro Se Pltff Jorge Rodriguez's motion, filed 10/30/17, which seeks reconsideration of the Court's 10/19/17, order dismissing each of the above-captioned consolidated actions, is denied because he again makes no showing of the Court's misapprehension of facts or law, at the time of its rulings, which would require the Court to revisit its prior decisions. For the same reasons, pltff's "letter of explanation," filed 10/31/17, which the Court cons trues as a second motion for reconsideration of the Court's 10/19/17 order, is denied. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 USC sec. 1915(a)(3), that any appeals would not be taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeals. The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain these consolidated cases on the closed docket. (Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 11/3/2017) c/m Associated Cases: 1:17-cv-02086-ENV-LB et al. (Galeano, Sonia)

Download PDF
( UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- x JORGE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER -against16-cv-665 5 (ENV) (LB) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------- x -------------------------------------------------------------- x JORGE RODRIGUEZ, NOT FOR PUBLICATION ~, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER -against16-cv-7150 (ENV) (LB) L&M BUS CORP., Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------- x -------------------------------------------------------------- x JORGE RODRIGUEZ, NOT FOR PUBLICATION Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER -against17-cv-1851 (ENV) (LB) NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------- x 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- x JORGE RODRIGUEZ, NOT FOR PUBLICATION Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER -against17-cv-1894 (ENV) (LB) NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------- x -------------------------------------------------------------- x JORGE RODRIGUEZ, NOT FOR PUBLICATION Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER -against17-cv-1939 (ENV) (LB) KINGS COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE, Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------- x -------------------------------------------------------------- x JORGE RODRIGUEZ, NOT FOR PUBLICATION Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER -against17-cv-2046 (ENV) (LB) GAMESTOP, Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------- x -------------------------------------------------------------- x JORGE RODRIGUEZ, NOT FOR PUBLICATION Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER -against17-cv-2086 (ENV) (LB) DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------- x 2 •. -------------------------------------------------------------- :x JORGE RODRIGUEZ, NOT FOR PUBLICATION Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER -against17-cv-2111 (ENV)(LB) NEW YORK CITY NYPD, DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CENTER, and NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT g4th PRECINCT, Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------- :x -------------------------------------------------------------- :x JORGE RODRIGUEZ, NOT FOR PUBLICATION Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER -against17-cv-2150 (ENV) (LB) CHASE BANK, Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------- :x -------------------------------------------------------------- :x JORGE RODRIGUEZ, NOT FOR PUBLICATION Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER -against17-cv-2703 (ENV) (LB) SPRINT, Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------- :x VITALIANO, D.J. Prose plaintiff Jorge Rodriguez's motion, filed October 30, 2017, which seeks reconsideration of the Court's October 19, 201 7, order dismissing each of the above-captioned consolidated actions, is denied because he again makes no showing of the Court's misapprehension of facts or law, at the time of its rulings, which would require the Court to 3 revisit its prior decisions.^ See Shrader v. CSXTransp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255,257(2d Cir. 1995). For the same reasons, plaintiffs "letter of explanation," filed October 31,2017, which the Court construes as a second motion for reconsideration of the Court's October 19,2017 order, is denied. Id. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeals would not be taken in good faith, and, therefore, informa pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeals. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,444-45,82 S. Ct. 917,920-21,8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain these consolidated cases on the closed docket.' So Ordered. Dated: Brooklyn, New York November 3,2017 /s/ USDJ ERIC N. VITALIANO ERIC N. VITALIANO United States District Judge 'Rodriguez has also appealed the Court's October 26, 2017, order denying a motion for reconsideration ofthe Court's September 11,2017, orders dismissing his various cases. The Court can nevertheless consider the motions at issue in this case. The Second Circuit has explicitly noted that while "the docketing of a notice of appeal ousts the district court of jurisdiction except insofar as it is reserved to it explicitly by statute or rule[,] District Courts may "entertain and deny the Rule 60(b) motion." Toliver v. Cty. ofSullivan, 957 F.2d 47,49(2d Cir. 1992)(per curiam). ^ The Court also acknowledges Plaintiffs letter withdrawing his motion for reconsideration as to 17-CV-2041,17-CV-2042, 17-cv-2043, and 17-cv-2044.

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?