Dolberry v. Jakob, et al
Filing
103
DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that 1. The judgment of the Decision and Order (ECF No. 90) remains in effect; 2. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED (ECF No. 92 ); and 3. Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is DENIED (ECF No. 97 ) as premature with leave to renew at a later date. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 3/4/16. (served on plaintiff by regular mail; copy served on 2nd CCA) (alh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------ANDRE DOLBERRY,
9:11-CV-1018
(DNH/DEP)
Plaintiff,
-v-
CORRECTION OFFICER JAKOB, et al.,
Defendants.
-------------------------------APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
ANDRE DOLBERRY, Pro Se
14-A-1111
Franklin Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 10
Malone, NY 12953
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
New York State Attorney General
Attorney for Defendants
The Capitol
Albany, NY12224
DENISE P. BUCKLEY, ESQ.
Ass't Attorney General
DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Andre Dolberry, who is also sometimes known as Andre Duberry,
brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 28, 2014, the Honorable
David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied, and that plaintiff's complaint in this action
be dismissed based upon his material misrepresentation to the court, under oath, that he has
not brought any prior actions relating to his imprisonment. See ECF No. 54. Plaintiff timely
filed objections to the Report-Recommendation. See ECF No. 55. The ReportRecommendation was adopted in all respects. See ECF No. 56. Plaintif f timely appealed.
See ECF Nos. 58, 60.
Upon review, the Second Circuit focused solely upon the sua sponte dismissal of
plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, and remanded for further
proceedings. See ECF 89. Specifically, the Second Circuit's directive was to either:
(1) document a sufficient basis for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11,
or (2) adopt Judge Peebles's alternate recommendation to grant in part and deny in part
defendants' motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 89, at 4-5. Accordingly, upon de
novo review, Judge Peebles's alternate recommendation to grant in part and deny in part
defendants' motion for summary judgment was adopted. ECF No. 90, at 4.
Thereafter, plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit (ECF No. 91),
a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 92), and a motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 97). In
his motion for reconsideration, it is readily apparent that plaintiff misunderstood the Decision
and Order, as he devotes the entirety of the argument to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
See ECF No. 92. However, in accordance with the Second Circuit's mandate, this Court
eschewed any and all rationale related to the Rule 11 sua sponte dism issal of the complaint,
and adopted Judge Peebles's alternate reasoning that thoroughly addressed the substantive
issues of the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. See ECF No. 54, at 18-46
(addressing each claim in turn: procedural due process, cruel and unusual punishm ent,
denial of access to the courts, equal protection, individual claims against defendant
Martuscello, retaliation, conspiracy, and qualified immunity). Nevertheless, in considering
-2-
plaintiff's motion, it should be noted that the party moving for reconsideration has a heavy
burden. See Flaherty v. Filardi, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22641, *26-27 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20,
2009). The standard for reconsideration 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, 256-57 (2d Cir.
1995). As plaintiff's arguments focus solely upon Rule 11, which was not a part of the
judgment of the Decision and Order, he has utterly failed to meet the standard for
reconsideration. Therefore, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration must fail. ECF No. 92.
Finally, plaintiff has made a motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 98. However, in
lieu of his pending appeal to the Second Circuit, this motion is premature and will be denied
as such.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The judgment of the Decision and Order (ECF No. 90) remains in effect;
2. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED (ECF No. 92); and
3. Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is DENIED (ECF No. 97) as premature with
leave to renew at a later date.
The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon plaintiff in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
-3-
Dated:
March 4, 2016
Utica, New York
-4-
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?