Corley v. Vance et al

Filing 17

ORDER denying 16 Motion for Reconsideration; terminating 10 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at Docket Entries 10 (wh ich has been addressed by prior order) and 16. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 7/10/2015) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (tn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------X
:
ROYCE CORLEY,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
CYRUS R. VANCE, JR., et al.,
:
:
Defendants. :
:
------------------------------------------------------ X

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: July 10, 2015
______________

15 Civ. 1800 (KPF)
ORDER

KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge:
Plaintiff Royce Corley filed a complaint in January 2015 against
numerous public and private individuals and entities, alleging constitutional
violations and violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
(“ECPA”), the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), the Right to Financial
Privacy Act (“RFPA”), and the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (“DPPA”). Plaintiff
also asserts state-law claims over which he asks this Court to exercise diversity
and supplemental jurisdiction. After reviewing the Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b), the Court issued an Order dated June
22, 2015. In the June 22 Order, the Court detailed for Plaintiff various
deficiencies in his pleading — both legal and factual — and afforded Plaintiff an
opportunity to amend his Complaint to redress the deficiencies it had
identified. (Dkt. #15). In the same Order, the Court considered, and rejected,
Plaintiff’s request to proceed under a pseudonym.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the June 22 Order
under Rule 6.3 of the Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the

Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. (Dkt. #16). In the alternative, he
seeks in forma pauperis status to pursue an interlocutory appeal. For the
reasons set forth in the remainder of this Order, the motion is denied.
APPLICABLE LAW
“‘The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is within the
sound discretion of the district court.’” In re Optimal U.S. Litig., 813 F. Supp.
2d 383, 387 n.6 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting Patterson v. United States, No. 04 Civ.
3140 (WHP), 2006 WL 2067036, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2006)). Under Local
Rule 6.3, the moving party must “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.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70
F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995) (internal citations omitted) (noting that the
standard for granting motions for reconsideration is “strict”).
“A motion for reconsideration may not be used to advance new facts,
issues or arguments not previously presented to the Court, nor may it be used
as a vehicle for relitigating issues already decided by the Court.” Davidson v.
Scully, 172 F. Supp. 2d 458, 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (citing Shrader, 70 F.3d at
257). Such a motion should not be made “reflexively to reargue those issues
already considered when a party does not like the way the original motion was
resolved.” In re Optimal U.S. Litig., 813 F. Supp. 2d at 387 (quoting Makas v.
Orlando, No. 06 Civ. 14305 (DAB) (AJP), 2008 WL 2139131, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May
19, 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Above all, “[r]econsideration 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.’” Parrish
2

v. Sollecito, 253 F. Supp. 2d 713, 715 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (quoting In re Health
Mgmt. Sys. Inc. Secs. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)).
The Court is mindful that, “when the plaintiff proceeds pro se, as in this
case, a court is obliged to construe his pleadings liberally, particularly when
they allege civil rights violations,” and to interpret them as raising the strongest
arguments they suggest. McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir.
2004); see also Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101 (2d Cir. 2010) (“It is well
established that a court is ordinarily obligated to afford a special solicitude to
pro se litigants.” (collecting cases)). Nonetheless, this liberal standard does not
exempt a plaintiff from his or her duty to meet the requirements for
reconsideration. See Patterson, 2006 WL 2067036, at *1 (collecting cases).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s motion is predicated on a misunderstanding of the June 22
Order: Plaintiff complains that the Court “dismissed” the federal counts in his
Complaint and “declined to exercise diversity and supplemental jurisdiction”
over the state-law counts. (Dkt. #16 at 1). It did neither. Instead, the Court
addressed, in painstaking detail, what it perceived to be the legal and factual
impediments to mounting Plaintiff’s claims, and provided Plaintiff an
opportunity to amend his pleading — or not — to remedy those deficiencies.
Plaintiff can, of course, stand on the current Complaint and contest that there
are any deficiencies; he has been forewarned, however, that some of the counts
may be subject to dismissal on the bases identified in the June 22 Order.
Proceeding to Plaintiff’s remaining applications, the Court denies
Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of its denial of his motion to proceed by
3

pseudonym, finding no error in its prior decision. The Court also declines
Plaintiff’s request that it “immediately issue summons and order the
defendants to provide discovery” (Dkt. #16 at 4); issuance of summonses will
await the filing of an amended complaint. Finally, there is no basis for appeal
from the June 22 Order, which is non-final, and the Court will not grant
Plaintiff in forma pauperis status for that purpose. See Coppedge v. United
States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates
good faith sufficient to obtain in forma pauperis status for appeal when he
seeks review of a non-frivolous issue).
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. The Clerk of Court is
directed to terminate the motions at Docket Entries 10 (which has been
addressed by prior order) and 16. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith,
and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 10, 2015
New York, New York

__________________________________
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
United States District Judge

A copy of this Order was mailed by Chambers to:
Royce Corley
Reg. No. 06811-054
FCI Danbury
33 1/2 Pembroke Rd.
Danbury, CT 06811

4