Rodriguez v. New York City NYPD et al
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-02111-ENV-LB et al. (Galeano, Sonia)
(
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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?