McCluskey v. Town of East Hampton et al

Filing 57

OPINION & ORDER denying 56 Motion for Reconsideration of 51 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and 52 Judgment. SO ORDERED that plaintiff's motion is denied as untimely. In addition, plaintiff's argument that his case was dismissed while he was medically unable to return to the United States is unavailing because the underlying motion was fully briefed and thus his presence in the jurisdiction was unnecessary to a decision. Moreover, plaintiff has not identi fied any factual matters or controlling law which might be expected to alter the Order and accordingly, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. cm to pro se plaintiff. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 6/23/2015. (Florio, Lisa)

r'·_

-..

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------------------){

JOHN WILLIAM McCLUSKEY,

Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER
13-CV-1248 (SJF)

-againstTOWN OF EAST HAMPTON, VILLAGE OF EAST
HAMPTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, TOWN OF
EAT HAMPTON COURT, POLICE OFFICER
NICHOLAS LLOYD, RICHARD H. SCHNEIDER,
POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE I, POLICE OFFICER
JOHN DOE 2, POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE 3,
COURT OF EAST HAMPTON EMPLOYEES,
JUSTICE LISA R. RANA, TOWN SUPERVISOR
WILKENSON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY SPOTTA [sic],

FILED
IN CLERK"S OFFICE
U S DISTRICT COURT E 0 N Y

*

JUN

23 Z015

*

LONG ISLAND OFFiCE

Defendants.

-------------------------------------------------------------------){
FEUERSTEIN, District Judge.

Before the Court is John William McCluskey's ("plaintiff') motion for reconsideration
(DE 56) of this Court's Order ("Order") dated August 7, 2014 (DE 51), which dismissed
plaintiffs complaint in itsentirety. 1 Based upon the following, the motion is DENIED.
"Motions for reconsideration are governed by Rule 6.3 of the Local Rules of the United
States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, which states: Unless
otherwise provided by statute or rule ... a notice of motion for reconsideration or reargument of
a court order determining a motion shall be served within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the
court's determination of the original motion, or in the case of a court order resulting in a
judgment, within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the judgment." Jackson v. Killian, No. 08
Civ. 4386,2010 WL 2103646, at *I (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 2010).

1

With respect to defendant District Attorney Spota, the dismissal was without prejudice
because he was never served with the complaint (DE 51 pp. 18-19).

"Reconsideration of a previous order is an 'extraordinary remedy to be employed
sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.' " Mallet v.

Miller, 438 F. Supp. 2d 276, 277 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (quoting In re Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc. Sec.
Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)). "The standard for granting such a motion is
strict, and reconsideration 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." Shrader v. CSX Transp.,

Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). See Mallet, 438 F. Supp. 2d at 277 ("A motion for
reconsideration under Local Rule 6.3 must demonstrate controlling law or factual matters put
before the court on the underlying motion that the movant believes the court overlooked and that
might reasonably be expected to alter the court's decision."). Local Rule 6.3 is intended to"
'ensure the finality of decisions and to prevent the practice of a losing party examining a decision
and then plugging the gaps of a lost motion with additional matters.' " SEC v. Ashbury Capital

Partners, L.P., No. 00 Civ. 7898,2001 WL 604044, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2001) (quoting
Carolco Pictures, Inc. v. Sirota, 700 F. Supp. 169, 170 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)). Thus, a court "must
narrowly construe and strictly apply Local Rule 6.3, so as to avoid duplicative rulings on
previously considered issues, and to prevent the rule from being used as a substitute for appealing
a final judgment." Montanile v. Nat'/ Broad. Co., 216 F. Supp. 2d 341, 342 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
Judgment for defendants was entered and this case was closed on August 15, 2014 (DE
52). Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Order resulting in judgment on December 29,
2014, i.e., four (4) months after the time to move expired. Therefore, plaintiff's motion is denied
as untimely.
In addition, plaintiff's argument that his case was dismissed while he was medically
-2-

unable to return to the United States is unavailing because the underlying motion was fully
briefed and thus his presence in the jurisdiction was unnecessary to a decision. Moreover,
plaintiff has not identified any factual matters or controlling law which might be expected to alter
the Order and accordingly, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 23, 2015
Central Islip, New York

s/ Sandra J. Feuerstein

v
Sandra J. Feuerstein, U.S.D.J.

-3-