Pinter v. The City of New York et al
Filing
106
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 104 MOTION for Reconsideration Aspects of the Court's October 10, 2013 Opinion and Order. filed by Robert Pinter. For the above reasons, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied, except to note that plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed all remaining claims against all individual defendants. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close plaintiff's motion [Dkt. No.104]. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 10/23/2013) (djc)
~.... ,:,':~.~ .. ~~.':;""'-~-'-'-7;'~;
,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------
)(
ROBERT PINTER,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
- againstTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
09 Civ. 7841 (SAS)
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------
)(
SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, U.S.D.J.:
This Court issued an Opinion and Order on October 10, 2013 ("the
October 10 Order") granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion for
summary judgment. 1 The Court ruled that plaintiff "may proceed on his false
arrest, malicious prosecution, excessive force, and abuse of process claims against
the City under lv/oneil [and] on his excessive force claim against the individual
NYPD personnel in the van."2 The Court dismissed plaintiffs state law abuse of
Pinter v. City a/New York, No. 09 Civ. 7841,2013 WL 5597545, at
* 16 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10,2013). Familiarity with the facts and procedural history of
the case is presumed.
2
ld
.
process claim as well as all other claims against the individual defendants. 3
Plaintiff now moves the Court to reconsider and amend its Order on
two grounds. 4 First, the Court should allow his claim for false arrest and an
unlawful stop to proceed based on the theory that an undercover officer's allegedly
false statements about the factual predicate for plaintiff's arrest violated plaintiff's
right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. 5 Second, the Court should
amend its Order to clarify that a reasonable jury may infer actual malice, an
element of the malicious prosecution claim, from those allegedly false statements. 6
Plaintiff also indicates that he will no longer proceed on his excessive force claim
against any of the individual NYPD defendants. 7 For the following reasons,
plaintiff's motion is denied, except to note that plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed
all remaining claims against any individual defendant.
The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration pursuant to
Local Rule 6.3 is strict. "Reconsideration will generally be denied unless the
3
See id.
See 10/21113 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration of Aspects of this Court's October 10,2013 Opinion and Order
and for Such Other and Further Relief as Is Required.
4
5
See id. at 3-7.
6
See id. at 7-9.
7
See id. at 1-3.
2
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."s "Reconsideration of a court's previous order is an
'extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and
conservation of scarce judicial resources.",9 The standard for granting
reconsideration must be strict in order to "to prevent the practice of a losing party
examining a decision and then plugging the gaps of a lost motion with additional
matters."]O Typical grounds for reconsideration include "an intervening change of
controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error
or prevent manifest injustice."ll
Plaintiff has presented no evidence or argument justifying
reconsideration or amendment of the October 10 Order. The Court properly
analyzed the false arrest and unlawful stop claims under the Fourth Amendment
8
Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995).
Oji v. Yonkers Police Dep t, No. 12 Civ. 8125,2013 WL 4935588, at
*1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11,2013) (quoting Parrish v. Sollecito, 253 F. Supp. 2d 713,
715 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)).
9
J
AEP-PRI Inc. v. Galtronics Corp. Ltd., No. 12 Civ. 8981,2013 WL
5289740, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19,2013) (quoting Naiman v. N.Y. Univ. Hasps.
Ctr., No. 95 Civ. 6469,2005 WL 926904, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2005)).
10
Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. National Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245,
1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).
11
3
and ruled that plaintiff may proceed on the false arrest claim but not the unlawful
stop claim. 12 There is no cause of action for false arrest or an unlawful stop under
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. J3 The Court also held that
plaintiff may proceed on his malicious prosecution claim. 14 Plaintiff may present
factual theories regarding the "actual malice" element of that claim at trial.
For the above reasons, plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is denied,
except to note that plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed all remaining claims against
all individual defendants. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close plaintiffs
motion [Dkt. No.1 04].
12
See Pinter, 2013 WL 5597545, at *8 and *12.
See Russo v. City ofBridgeport, 479 F.3d 196,208-09 (2d Cir. 2007)
(''' [W]here a particular Amendment provides an explicit textual source of
constitutional protection against a particular sort of government behavior, that
Amendment, not the more generalized notion of substantive due process must be
the guide for analyzing these claims' .... Since the Fourth Amendment provides a
more 'explicit textual source of constitutional protection,' ... the Fourth
Amendment, rather than substantive due process, should serve as 'the guide for
analyzing these claims. "') (quoting Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273 (1994)
(plurality opinion) and Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989». Accord
Ambrose v. City ofNew York, 623 F. Supp. 2d 454,474 n.9 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)
("Plaintiffs allegation[] of false arrest ... state[s] a claim only under the Fourth
Amendment, and not under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.") (citing Afurphy v. Lynn, 118 F. 3d 938, 944 (2d Cir. 1997».
13
14
See Pinter, 2013 WL 5597545, at *9.
4
SO ORDERED:
Dated:
New York, New York
October 23,2013
5
- Appearances
For Plaintiff:
James 1. Meyerson, Esq.
64 Fulton Street, Suite 502
New York, NY 10038
(212) 226-3310
Jeffrey A. Rothman, Esq.
315 Broadway, Suite 200
New York, NY 10007
(212) 227-2980
For Defendants:
Dara OIds
Senior Counsel
Special Federal Litigation Division
Law Department
City of New York
100 Church Street, Room 3-198
New York, NY 10007
(212) 356-2385
6
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?