Brown v. Molia et al
ORDER denying 26 Motion to Vacate 24 Order on Motion to Strike, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, 25 Clerk's Judgment. SO ORDERED thatthe Court denies plaintiff's Rule 60(b)(6) motion. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to the pro se plaintiff. CM to pro se plaintiff. Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 5/9/2017. (Florio, Lisa)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
For Online Publication Only
16-CV-1654 (JMA) (SIL)
-againstDENISE FRANCINE MOLIA, in her official
and individual capacity, STEVEN R. SCHLESINGER,
in his official and individual capacity,
AZRACK, United States District Judge:
5/9/2017 12:20 pm
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LONG ISLAND OFFICE
Before the Court is plaintiff Swinton Brown’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion to vacate the Court’s
Memorandum & Order dated March 9, 2017, granting defendants’ motions to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Brown’s motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits a district court, in its discretion, to vacate a
final judgment. The Rule provides, in pertinent part:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative
from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: . . . (6) any
other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6).1 Application of Rule 60(b)(6) is only appropriate “when there are
extraordinary circumstances justifying relief, when the judgment may work an extreme and undue
Even if the Court were to construe plaintiff’s motion as a motion for reconsideration brought pursuant to Local Rule
6.3, as defendant Denise Molia suggests, the Court would still adhere to its prior judgment. The standard for
reconsidering a prior judgment is strict. Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). A motion for
reconsideration should be denied unless there has been an intervening change in controlling law, evidence has become
newly available, or there is a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd.
v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992). The Court finds that none of these conditions are present,
and plaintiff does not even attempt to argue to the contrary. Rather, plaintiff renews his merits argument, which the
Court already considered and rejected in its March 9 Order. Because reconsideration is not appropriate where a
movant seeks simply to relitigate an issue already decided, Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257, the Court declines to reconsider
its prior judgment.
hardship, and when the asserted grounds for relief are not recognized in clauses (1)–(5) of the
Rule.” Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 63 (2d Cir. 1986) (internal citations omitted).
Plaintiff does not argue that extraordinary circumstances exist. Nor does he contend that
the Court’s judgment may work an extreme and undue hardship on him. Rather, plaintiff renews
his arguments, already raised in his briefing on the underlying motion, on the merits of his claim.
The Court has already considered and rejected plaintiff’s argument that the Declaratory Judgment
Act alone establishes subject matter jurisdiction in this case. In the absence of extraordinary
circumstances and a suggestion that this ruling may affect an extreme and undue hardship on the
plaintiff, the Court declines to revisit its prior decision.
Accordingly, the Court denies plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion. The Clerk of Court is
directed to send a copy of this Order to the pro se plaintiff.
_/s/ JMA____ ___________
Joan M. Azrack
United States District Judge
Dated: May 9, 2017
Central Islip, New York
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?