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, )

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