Tyler et al v. Toulon et al
ORDER - Before the Court is a letter filed pro se by Milo D. Tyler ("Tyler") (ECF No. 28 ) that the Court liberally construes as a motion for reconsideration of the Court's October 6, 2021 Order (ECF No. 16 ) that, among other things , dismissed Tyler's claims without prejudice. For the reasons that follow (SEE ATTACHED ORDER for details), Tyler's motion for reconsideration is denied. So Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 1/6/2022. c/m to pro se plaintiff, Milo D. Tyler (Coleman, Laurie)
Case 2:21-cv-02417-JMA-JMW Document 29 Filed 01/06/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 128
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
For Online Publication Only
-againstSUFFOLK COUNTY SHERIFF ERROL D. TOULON, [JR.],
AZRACK, District Judge:
Before the Court is a letter filed pro se by Milo D. Tyler (“Tyler”) (ECF No. 28) that the
Court liberally construes as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s October 6, 2021 Order
(ECF No. 16) that, among other things, dismissed Tyler’s claims without prejudice. For the
reasons that follow, Tyler’s motion for reconsideration is denied. 1
As is relevant to the instant application, on April 26, 2021, three inmates (Tyler, Steven
Burton-Whitmore (“Burton-Whitmore”), and Messiah Jefferson (“Jefferson”)) then-incarcerated
at the Suffolk County Correctional Center 2 filed a civil rights complaint in this Court that was
assigned Docket No. 21-CV-2417. Each individual also filed an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. Upon review, by Order dated October 6, 2021, the Court granted the applications to
proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the claims filed by Tyler and Burton-Whitmore without
prejudice, finding that their claims
In addition, given that Tyler is no longer a party to this action, his letter motion to compel
(ECF No. 11) is denied.
Burton-Whitmore has been released from incarceration (see ECF No. 23) and Jefferson has
been transferred to the Franklin Correctional Facility (see ECF No. 14). Tyler remains
incarcerated at the Suffolk County Correctional Facility. See 20-CV-6189.
Case 2:21-cv-02417-JMA-JMW Document 29 Filed 01/06/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 129
are repetitive of claims already proceeding in the Eastern District of New York in
cases assigned docket numbers 20-CV-6186(JMA)(AKT) and 21-CV0689(GRB)(JMW), respectively. According, under first filed rule, the Court
dismisses the claims brought by Tyler and Burton-Whitmore in this case without
prejudice. See Horowitz v. 148 S. Emerson Assocs. LLC, 888 F.3d 13, 22 (2d
Cir. 2018) (Under the first-filed rule “where there are two competing lawsuits, the
first suit should have priority, absent the showing of balance of convenience or
special circumstances giving priority to the second.”) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
See ECF No. 16 at 1-2. The Court also noted: “Should these plaintiffs seek to pursue additional,
related claims in their respective actions, this dismissal is without prejudice to seeking to amend
their complaints in those actions.” See id. at n. 1.
Tyler sought reconsideration of the October 6, 2021 Order on October 28, 2021 by filing
a brief letter wherein he asserts that his individual action, 20-CV-06186 “does not contain all of
the Due Process violations mentioned within case #21-CV-02417” and argues that “his case will
be stronger with the mentioned allegations happening to more people. . . .”
(See ECF No. 28 at
Motions for reconsideration may be filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
59(e) or 60(b). The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) is
“strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied.” Herschaft v. N.Y.C. Campaign Fin. Bd,
139 F. Supp. 2d 282, 283 (E.D.N.Y. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A
motion for reconsideration is appropriate when the moving party can demonstrate that the Court
overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying
motion . . . and which, had they been considered, might have reasonably altered the result before
Notably absent is any indication of Jefferson’s position on Tyler’s application, given that
Jefferson is the sole remaining plaintiff in this case.
Case 2:21-cv-02417-JMA-JMW Document 29 Filed 01/06/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 130
the court.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Alternatively, the movant
must demonstrate the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. at 284
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also permits the Court to relieve a
party from an order in the event of mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, newly discovered
evidence, fraud, or in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b); House
v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 688 F.2d 7, 9 (2d Cir. 1982). Specifically, Rule 60(b)
provides that relief may be granted for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time
to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called
intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4)
the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged;
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b) is “extraordinary judicial relief” and can be granted “only
upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.” Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir.
1986); accord United States v. Bank of New York, 14 F.3d 756, 759 (2d Cir. 1994).
In addition, Local Civil Rule 6.3 provides that a party moving for reconsideration must be
made “within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the judgment” and shall include a
“memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which [the party]
believes the court has overlooked.” See Local Civil Rule 6.3 of the Local Rules of the United
States District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. The decision to grant
or deny a motion for reconsideration, whether under Local Rule 6.3, Rule 59(e) or 60(a), rests
Case 2:21-cv-02417-JMA-JMW Document 29 Filed 01/06/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 131
within “the sound discretion of the district court.” See Aczel v. Labonia, 584 F.3d 52, 61 (2d
Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, as is readily apparent, Tyler’s sparse letter does not satisfy the standard necessary
for this Court to reconsider the Order. Insofar as Tyler requests “to continue his case along with
Mr. Jefferson” because his case, 20-CV-06186, “does not contain all of the Due Process
violations mentioned within case #21-CV-02417,” he ignores the Court’s express invitation to
include any such claims in his individual action. See ECF No. at 2 n.1 (“Should these Plaintiffs
seek to pursue additional, related claims in their respective actions, this dismissal is without
prejudice to seeking to amend their complaints in those actions.”). Moreover, Tyler may seek
other incidents, such as those alleged by Jefferson, that relate to Tyler’s claims during the course
of discovery as evidence in support of his claims in his individual action. Thus, neither reason
advanced by Tyler supports reconsideration of the October 6, 2021 Order.
Moreover, Tyler has not identified any “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., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Nor does
Tyler provide any legal or factual basis for the Court to reconsider the Order. Accordingly,
Tyler’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 28) is denied.
this action, his motion to compel (ECF No. 11) is also denied.
Given that Tyler is not a party to
Case 2:21-cv-02417-JMA-JMW Document 29 Filed 01/06/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 132
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order
would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose
of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order to Tyler and Jefferson at their
respective address of record.
/s/ Joan M Azrack______
Joan M. Azrack
United States District Judge
Dated: January 6, 2022
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?