Reeder v. Koenigsmann et al
DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 7 ) is DENIED in all respects. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 2/13/17. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
E. ROBINSON YOUNG, et al.,
Plaintiff, pro se
Upstate Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 2001
Malone, NY 12953
GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Raszell Reeder commenced this action by submitting a pro se civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") together with an application to
proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl."), Dkt. No. 2 ("IFP Application"). In his
complaint, plaintiff asserted allegations of wrongdoing against more than seventy defendants
including, but not limited to, staff employed at multiple state correctional facilities, the New
York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS") Central Office,
and the New York State Office of Mental Health. See generally Compl. The wrongdoing
alleged in the complaint dated back to 1985, and allegedly occurred while plaintiff was
housed as a juvenile at Spafford Juvenile Delinquent Facility and Highland
Juvenile Delinquent Facility; and while an inmate in the custody of DOCCS at Downstate
Correctional Facility, Clinton Correctional Facility, Southport Correctional Facility, Eastern
New York Correctional Facility, Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Wende Correctional
Facility, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Central New York Psychiatric Center, Attica
Correctional Facility, Auburn Correctional Facility, Upstate Correctional Facility, and Franklin
Correctional Facility. Id.
By Decision and Order filed December 6, 2016, plaintiff's IFP Application was granted
and the sufficiency of the complaint was considered in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Dkt. No. 4 (the "December 2016 Order"). Accepting
plaintiff's allegations as true for the purposes of the review, plaintiff alleged that he has
suffered from thyroid cancer and herpes as far back as 1985, but the defendants failed to
disclose these conditions to him or treat him for the conditions. See generally Compl. The
Court construed plaintiff's complaint to assert Eighth Amendment medical indifference claims
against all defendants. After conducting its review, the Court found that the Eighth
Amendment medical indifference claims against defendants E. Robinson Young, E. Wheldon,
Bill Nertoske, G. Rigaud, Paul Daughtery, M. Blauvell, V. Riveria, E. Liverson, C.
Lymmerman, Z. Blunton, A. Jonathan, Doctor Ryan, Doctor Valencia, Anthony Corty Ann,
Mike Sedar, Silvia Koole, Doctor Choo, Richard Bunchy, Doctor Costillo, Doctor E. Herryman,
Doctor C. Ware, Doctor Punzal, Doctor Deposio, Doctor Qayyam (Wende Correctional
Facility), B. McNeally, E. William, Doctor Buscema, Doctor Qayyum (Great Meadow
Correctional Facility), Carmella Greasley, C. Brazier, Doctor V. Kumar, Doctor W. Goodwin,
N. Smith (Registered Nurse, Franklin Correctional Facility), K. Holmes, M. Burke, and Doctor
Kim survived sua sponte review and required a response. December 2016 Order at 20.1 The
Eighth Amendment medical indifference claims against the remaining defendants were
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. December 2016 Order at 21.
Presently before the Court is plaintiff's motion seeking reconsideration of the
December 2016 Order. Dkt. No. 7. Plaintiff asks the Court to re-instate the Eighth
Amendment medical indifference claims against the defendants that were dismissed in the
December 2016 Order. Id.
A court may justifiably reconsider its previous ruling if: (1) there is an intervening
change in the controlling law; (2) new evidence not previously available comes to light; or (3)
it becomes necessary to remedy a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice.
Delaney v. Selsky, 899 F. Supp. 923, 925 (N.D.N.Y. 1995) (McAvoy, C.J.) (citing Doe v. New
York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1983)). The standard for granting
a motion for reconsideration is strict. Shrader v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257
(2d Cir. 1995). A motion for reconsideration "should not be granted where the moving party
seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided." Id.2 Thus, a motion for reconsideration is
not to be used for "presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the
merits, or otherwise taking a 'second bite at the apple.'" Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d
136, 144 (2d Cir. 1998).
Summonses were issued for these defendants, see Dkt. No. 10, and service is ongoing.
Generally, motions for reconsideration are not granted 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." Id.
Plaintiff does not suggest that there has been an intervening change in the controlling
law, nor has he presented new evidence which was not previously available. Therefore, the
only basis for reconsideration is to remedy a clear error of law or to prevent manifest
injustice. After thoroughly reviewing plaintiff's motion and affording it due consideration in
light of his status as a pro se litigant, the Court finds that plaintiff presents no basis for
reconsideration of the December 2016 Order. Based upon a review of the relevant law and
its application to the facts of this case, the Court concludes that its previous decision was
legally correct and did not work a manifest injustice. Thus, plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration of the December 2016 Order is denied in its entirety.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 7) is DENIED in all
respects; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order on plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 13, 2017
Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby
Chief U.S. District Judge
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?