Gookins v. Roulan et al

Filing 27

DECISION and ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 15) is DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on January 25, 2012. (sas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TODD L. GOOKINS,
Plaintiff,
-against-

6:11-CV-0427 (LEK/DEP)

TIMOTHY A. ROULAN, individually
and in his official capacity; and NEW
YORK STATE,
Defendants.
___________________________________
DECISION and ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Todd L. Gookins (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action pro se on April 18, 2011,

alleging violations of his civil rights arising from a state court proceeding in New York Family
Court, Herkimer County, in which Plaintiff was seeking custody of his daughter and Defendant
Timothy A. Roulan (“Defendant Roulan”) was his daughter’s court-appointed legal guardian. Dkt.
No. 1 (“Complaint”). Plaintiff sought injunctive relief from this Court directing Defendant Roulan:
(1) “to ‘stay away’ from [Plaintiff] and not to violate his constitutional rights”; (2) to respond to
subpoenas proposed by Plaintiff; and (3) not to “engag[e] in ex parte communications with the
assigned New York State Family Court Judge and Judicial Hearing Officer (‘JHO’).” Dkt. No. 8 at
2.
In a Memorandum-Decision and Order dated April 29, 2011, the Court denied Plaintiff’s
Motions and dismissed his Complaint. Gookins v. Roulan, No. 6:11-CV-0427, 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 46708 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2011) (“Order”). Presently before the Court is a Motion for
1

reconsideration filed by Plaintiff on May 12, 2011. Dkt. No. 15 (“Motion”). For the following
reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court applies a strict standard when reviewing a motion for reconsideration, 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). Generally, there are only three grounds upon which a court may grant a motion for
reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in law; (2) the availability of evidence not previously
available; and (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. Bath
Petroleum Storage, Inc. v. Sovas, 136 F. Supp. 2d 52, 56 (N.D.N.Y. 2001) (Kahn, J.); see also
Virgin Airways v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992); Doe v. New York City
Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1983). Reconsideration is not appropriate “when
the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided.” Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257; see
also Lichtenberg v. Besicorp Group Inc., 28 F. App’x 73, 75 (2d. Cir 2002) (“A motion for
reconsideration is not an opportunity for the moving party ‘to argue those issues already considered
when a party does not like the way the motion was resolved.’”).
III.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argues that reconsideration is warranted because Defendant Roulan is an

“independent contractor,” and as such is precluded from receiving the benefits of judicial immunity.
Mot. at 2-3. As the Court previously held in its Order, this argument fails because a law guardian
appointed to represent a child in a New York family court proceeding is entitled to absolute quasi2

judicial immunity. Gookins, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46708, at *3 n.2 (citing Allen v. Mattingly,
No. 10 CV 0667, 2011 WL 1261103, at *16 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2011) (citing Yapi v. Kondratyeva,
340 F. App’x 683, 685 (2d Cir. 2009); Wilson v. Wilson–Poison, No. 09 Civ. 9810, 2010 WL
3733935, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2010); Dowlah v. Dowlah, No. 09–CB–2020, 2010 WL 889292,
at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2010); Bluntt v. O’Connor, 737 N.Y.S.2d 471, 479 (N.Y. App. Div.
2002); Zahl v. Kosovksy, No. 08 Civ. 8308, 2011 WL 779784, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2011)).
Plaintiff offers no controlling cases that would require the Court to hold otherwise.1 Nor does
Plaintiff’s Motion point to any change in intervening law or new evidence, or clear error or manifest
injustice. For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for reconsideration is denied.
III.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 15) is DENIED; and it is

further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

1

Not only are the cases Plaintiff cites from other jurisdictions, they are inapposite because
they address the issue of immunity for court-appointed public defenders for criminal
defendants, not court-appointed legal guardians of children in family court proceedings. See
Mot. at 3 (citing Dziubak v. Mott, 486 N.W.2d 837 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992); Williams v.
Office of Pub. Defender County of Lehigh, 586 A.2d 924 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990); Ghananee v.
Black, 504 A.2d 281 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986)). Additionally, the Dziubak court’s holding on
the immunity issue in was ultimately reversed by the Minnesota Supreme Court, which held
that a public defender is immune from suit and based its conclusion in part on a prior
holding that a guardian ad litem had absolute immunity in a negligence suit “for actions
performed within the scope of his or her duties.” Dziubak v. Mott, 503 N.W.2d 771, 775
(Minn. 1993) (citing Tindell v. Rogosheske, 428 N.W.2d 386 (Minn. 1988)).
3

DATED:

January 25, 2012
Albany, New York

4