Brown v. New York City Police Department et al

Filing 102

ORDER denying 98 Motion for Reconsideration re 98 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 97 Amended Judgment. filed by Noel L. Brown, 100 MOTION for Extension of Time to File. filed by Noel L. Brown ; denying 100 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Accordingly, Brown's motions are denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at ECF Nos. 98 and 100. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 12/20/2023) (ate)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NOEL L. BROWN,

Plaintiffs,

18-CV-3287 (JPO)

-v-

ORDER

CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants.

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge:
Noel L. Brown, proceeding pro se, brought this action asserting various claims arising
out of his arrest and confinement. (ECF No. 2.) This Court subsequently dismissed Brown’s
first amended complaint and second amended complaint and denied recondition of the latter
dismissal. (ECF Nos. 66; 81; 88.)
Brown filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That
court dismissed the appeal on the ground that it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
(ECF No. 94.) However, the Second Circuit remanded to this Court to clarify that the dismissal
of Brown’s false-arrest claim was without prejudice in light of Amaker v. Weiner, 179 F.3d 48,
52 (2d Cir. 1999), which made clear that such a claim could be reinstated “should plaintiff’s
conviction be ‘expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to
make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus.’” Id. (quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994)).
On remand, this Court entered an amended judgment clarifying that the dismissal of
Brown’s false-arrest claim was without prejudice in light of Amaker and Heck. (ECF Nos. 96;
97.)

1

Brown then filed a “motion for reconsideration en banc” (ECF No. 98) and a motion for
an extension of time to file a notice of appeal (ECF No. 100).
Brown’s motions are without merit because he has not shown any ground for
reconsideration or any basis for an appeal. To the extent that he seeks to challenge the
underlying dismissal of his claims, the Second Circuit has already dismissed such an appeal on
the merits. And to the extent that he seeks to appeal or challenge the amended judgment’s
clarification that the dismissal of his false arrest claim was without prejudice, he lacks standing
for such an appeal because that clarification was in his favor.
Accordingly, Brown’s motions are denied.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at ECF Nos. 98 and 100.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 20, 2023
New York, New York
____________________________________
J. PAUL OETKEN
United States District Judge

2