Jackson v. The County of Nassau et al

Filing 16

ORDER granting 15 Motion for Reconsideration re 12 Order Dismissing Case,, 13 Clerk's Judgment. SO ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the April 13, 2016 Order and final judgment against him is granted but, upon re consideration, I adhere to my original determination to dismiss plaintiff's Section 1983 claims against Judge Berkowitz and ADA Grewert in their entirety with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2) for seeking monetary relief against defts who are immune from such relief; and to dismiss plaintiff's Section 1983 claims against the County in their entirety with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim for relief. CM to pro se plaintiff. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 6/1/2016. (Florio, Lisa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------X
ERWIN JACKSON, #08A5175,

FILED 
CLERK 

6/1/2016 11:36 am

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
LONG ISLAND OFFICE 

Plaintiff,
ORDER
15-CV-7218(SJF)(AKT)

-againstCOUNTY OF NASSAU, MERYL J. BERKOWITZ,
in her official and individual capacity, and
AMES C. GREWERT, in his official and individual
capacity,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------X
FEUERSTEIN, District Judge:
I.

Introduction
On December 11, 2015, incarcerated pro se plaintiff Erwin Jackson (“plaintiff”) filed a

complaint in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) against the County of
Nassau (“the County”); the Honorable Meryl J. Berkowitz (“Judge Berkowitz”), Acting Supreme
Court Justice; and Ames C. Grewert (“ADA Grewert”), an Assistant District Attorney in the
Nassau County District Attorney’s Office (collectively, “defendants”), accompanied by an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. By Order dated March 18, 2016, plaintiff’s application
to proceed in forma pauperis was denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and plaintiff was
directed to pay the full amount of the Court’s filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). On or about
April 1, 2016, plaintiff paid the requisite filing fee. Nonetheless, by Order dated April 13, 2016,
plaintiff’s claims were sua sponte dismissed in their entirety with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b). Judgment was entered in favor of defendants and against plaintiff on April 14,
2016. Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the
1

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Civil Rule 6.3 of the Local Rules of the United
States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, seeking
reconsideration of the April 13, 2016 Order and final judgment against him. For the reasons set
forth below, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is granted but, upon reconsideration, I adhere
to my original determination.

II.

Discussion
A.

Standard of Review

“Motions for reconsideration may be brought pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 6.3.” U.S. v. Real Prop. & Premises Located at
249-20 Cambria Ave., Little Neck, N.Y. 11362, 21 F. Supp. 3d 254, 259 (E.D.N.Y. 2014).
“[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.” Shrader v. CSX Transp. Inc., 70 F.3d
255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995); accord Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52
(2d Cir. 2012). In determining a motion for reconsideration, the court should consider: (1)
whether there has been “an intervening change of controlling law;” (2) whether there is new
evidence presented that was not previously available on the original motion; and (3) whether
there is a “need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil
of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Trust, 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Virgin Atl.
Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)). It is within the sound
discretion of the district court whether or not to grant a motion for reconsideration. See In re
2

Citigroup ERISA Litig., 112 F. Supp. 3d 156, 158 (S.D.N.Y. 2015); Callari v. Blackman
Plumbing Supply, Inc., 988 F. Supp. 2d 261, 287 (E.D.N.Y. 2013).

B.

Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, (1) that I “applied the wrong legal standards to [his]
complaint” because 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) “does not authorize district courts to sua sponte
dismiss complaints due to the ‘failure to state a claim for relief,’ but rather when a complaint
‘fails to state a cause of action[,]” and I did “not identify or allege which, if any, of [his] several
claims fails to state a ‘cause of action[,]’” (Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [“Plf. Mot.”] at
1-2); and (2) that I “overlooked the standards established by the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit” by sua sponte dismissing his pro se complaint without affording him an opportunity to
amend his complaint. (Id. at 2). Since plaintiff alleges, in essence, a need to correct a purported
error in the April 13, 2016 Order and final judgment against him, his motion for reconsideration
is granted. However, upon reconsideration of the April 13, 2016 Order and final judgment
against plaintiff, I adhere to my original determination to dismiss plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims
against Judge Berkowitz and ADA Grewert in their entirety with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(2) for seeking monetary relief against defendants who are immune from such relief;
and to dismiss plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against the County in their entirety with prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim for relief.

3

III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the April 13, 2016
Order and final judgment against him is granted but, upon reconsideration, I adhere to my
original determination to dismiss plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against Judge Berkowitz and
ADA Grewert in their entirety with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2) for seeking
monetary relief against defendants who are immune from such relief; and to dismiss plaintiff’s
Section 1983 claims against the County in their entirety with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim for relief.

SO ORDERED.
__________/s/____________
Sandra J. Feuerstein
United States District Judge
Dated:

June 1, 2016
Central Islip, New York

4