McGinnis v. Crissell et al
Filing
139
DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motion (Dkt. No. 129 ) for reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 12/30/15. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JERMAINE MCGINNIS,
Plaintiff,
-against-
9:13-cv-1538 (LEK/DJS)
JOHN D. CRISSELL, et al.,
Defendants.
DECISION and ORDER
I.
INTRODUCTION
On October 8, 2015, the Court issued a Decision and Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for
preliminary injunctive relief. Dkt. No. 128 (“October Order”). Presently before the Court is
Plaintiff’s Motion for reconsideration of the October Order. Dkt. No. 129 (“Motion”). Defendants
oppose the Motion. Dkt. No. 132 (“Opposition”).
II.
DISCUSSION
A court may reconsider a previous ruling if: (1) there is an intervening change in the
controlling law; (2) new evidence comes to light that was not previously available; or (3) it is
necessary to remedy a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Doe v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1983). The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is
strict and should not be granted where the party seeks to relitigate an issue already decided. Shrader
v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). The standard for obtaining preliminary
injunctive relief was discussed in the October Order and will not be repeated herein. See Oct. Order
at 1-2.
In his original motion for preliminary injunctive relief, Plaintiff alleged that he was
subjected to unspecified instances of assault, food tampering, and rape that allegedly occurred
during his confinement at various DOCCS facilities. See Dkt. No. 81 at 1, 2, 15. At the time he
filed the motion, Plaintiff was confined at Southport Correctional Facility (“Southport C.F.”) and
asked to be transferred to Downstate Correctional Facility (“Downstate C.F.”) to be “free from
further assaults.” See id. at 2; see also Oct. Order at 3. Plaintiff was subsequently transferred out of
Southport C.F. and when the Court issued the October Order, Plaintiff was confined at Central New
York Psychiatric Center (“CNY/PC”). See Oct. Order at 3. Plaintiff is still confined at CNY/PC.
In the October Order, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief holding that
Plaintiff’s transfer from Southport C.F. rendered his request for injunctive relief moot. See id. at 3.
The Court also noted that Plaintiff failed to identify the officers whom he sought to enjoin. See id.
at 4. The Court concluded:
The Defendants herein are not employed at Southport C.F. or any of the DOCCS
facilities referenced in Plaintiff’s Motion. Thus, the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief. See Kearney v. N.Y.S. D.O.C.S., No.
11-CV-1281, 2012 WL 5931399, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2012) (rejecting the
plaintiff’s attempt to enjoin a doctor who was not a party to the action).
To the extent that Plaintiff seeks a transfer to Downstate C.F., the law is clear that
an inmate does not have the right to be confined to the facility of his choosing. See
Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983). Plaintiff’s request to be transferred
to Downstate C.F. is therefore denied.
Oct. Order at 4.
Plaintiff’s recent submissions include unspecified allegations relating to his confinement in
CNY/PC, his conspiracy claim, his right to “a day in court,” and Defendants’ failure to comply with
discovery. Mot.; Dkt. No. 136 at 1-2. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not presented any new
arguments, facts, or caselaw to warrant reconsideration of the Court’s October Order. Plaintiff’s
present Motion lacks any further facts or law that may be weighed by the Court in support of
2
reconsideration. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the Court disregarded facts that resulted in clear
error or manifest injustice.
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. No. 129) for reconsideration is DENIED; and it is
further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order on
Plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
December 30, 2015
Albany, New York
3
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?