Roache v. Sullivan et al

Filing 35

DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that petitioner's motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 34 , is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 6/9/17. (served on petitioner by regular mail) (alh, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WALTER J. ROACHE, Petitioner, Lead Case 9:16-CV-1069 (TJM/TWD) v. SULLIVAN, et. al., Respondents. WALTER J. ROACHE, Petitioner, Member Case 9:17-CV-0574 (TJM/TWD) v. STATE OF NEW YORK, et. al., Respondents. APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: WALTER J. ROACHE Petitioner, pro se CNY PC P.O. Box 300 Marcy, NY 13403 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney for Respondents Office of the Attorney General 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271 LISA E. FLEISCHMANN, AAG THOMAS J. MCAVOY Senior United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Presently before the Court is petitioner Walter Roache's motion for reconsideration of the Court's May 26, 2017, Decision and Order consolidating the petitions filed in Roache v. Sullivan, et. al., 9:16-CV-1069 (TJM/TWD) ("Roache I"), and Roache v. State of New York, et. al., No. 9:17-CV-0574 ("Roache II"), Dkt. No. 1. Dkt. No. 34, Motion. The standard for reconsideration is strict, and a motion for reconsideration will be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or facts that the court "overlooked" and 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). Reconsideration is warranted only where controlling law has changed, new evidence is available, clear error must be corrected, or manifest injustice prevented. Long v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 778 F. Supp. 2d 222, 228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing Doe v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servcs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1983)); Jackson v. Jimino, 506 F. Supp. 2d 105, 108-09 (N.D.N.Y. 2007) (citations omitted). The rules for reconsideration are strictly construed to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been fully considered by the court. O'Brien v. Board of Educ. of Deer Park Union Free Sch. Dist., 127 F. Supp. 2d 342, 345 (E.D.N.Y. 2001). Petitioner has not demonstrated that any controlling decisions or material facts were overlooked that might have influenced the Court's prior Decision and Order. Nor has he shown that any clear error of law must be corrected, or manifest injustice prevented. Petitioner's May 17, 2017 reply papers opposing transfer and consolidation of the cases (Dkt. No. 31) were noted in the Decision and Order and considered by the Court. See Dkt. No. 32 at 2, 3 ("Having reviewed the petitions and other documents filed in Roach I and Roache II, consolidation is appropriate."). Petitioner's disagreement with the Court's decision is not a basis for reconsideration. Finkelstein v. Mardkha, 518 F. Supp. 2d 609, 611 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 2 (citation omitted)). WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED that petitioner's motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 34, is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Decision and Order upon the parties in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:June 9, 2017 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?