Price v. Simmons et al
Filing
71
OPINION AND ORDER. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Docket Entry 70. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any app eal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. re: 70 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 65 Memorandum & Opinion filed by Kelly Price. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 6/1/2017) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (rjm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------X
:
KELLY PRICE,
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
v.
:
:
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ROSE PIERRE- :
LOUIS, SELVENA BROOKS, INSPECTOR :
OLUFUNMILO F. OBE, DETECTIVE LINDA :
:
SIMMONS, OFFICER JOHN STAINES,
:
OFFICER ISELAINE GUICHARDO
HERMENE GILDO CRUZ, LT. NICHOLAS :
:
CORRADO, LIEUTENANT RAYMOND
DEJESUS, OFFICER EMMET, SERGEANT :
SHEVTIZ, MTA OFFICER JOHN DOE, and :
:
MTA OFFICER JANE DOE,
:
Defendants. :
:
----------------------------------------------------- X
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: ______________
June 1, 2017
15 Civ. 5871 (KPF)
OPINION AND ORDER
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge:
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Kelly Price’s second Motion for
Reconsideration, filed May 26, 2017, which requests that the Court reconsider
its Opinion and Order issued April 21, 2017 (the “April 21 Opinion” (Dkt #65)),
resolving her first motion to reconsider and motion to amend her complaint
(the “May 26 Motion” (Dkt. #70)). The Court hereby incorporates by reference
the April 21 Opinion’s recitation of the background of this litigation and legal
standards applicable to it.
The Court finds that with regard to six of the seven issues raised in the
May 26 Motion, Plaintiff seeks only to relitigate issues already decided by this
Court and Judge Preska. Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the resolution of these
issues is denied. See, e.g., Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d
Cir. 1995) (“[A] motion to reconsider should not be granted where the moving
party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided.”); SimplexGrinnell LP v.
Integrated Sys. & Power, Inc., 642 F. Supp. 2d 206, 210 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“A
motion for reconsideration is not an invitation to parties to ‘treat the court’s
initial decision as the opening of a dialogue in which that party may then use
such a motion to advance new theories or adduce new evidence in response to
the court’s ruling.’” (internal citations omitted)).
The only new matter that Plaintiff brings to the Court’s attention is
Plaintiff’s finding that the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office has blocked her
on Facebook. However, because Plaintiff no longer has any pending claims
against the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office in this litigation, the Court
does not believe it would be appropriate to add these claims to this case at this
stage. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the alleged blocking of her access to
the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office’s Facebook page is related to any of
the allegations in this case. Accordingly, if Plaintiff wishes to bring a First
Amendment claim on the basis of these new allegations, Plaintiff needs to do so
in a new and separate action.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is
DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at
Docket Entry 70.
2
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. See Coppedge v. United States,
369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
June 1, 2017
New York, New York
__________________________________
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
United States District Judge
A copy of this Order was mailed by Chambers to:
Kelly Price
534 W. 187th Street
Apt. # 7
New York, NY 10033
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?