Komatsu v. The City of New York et al

Filing 311

ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the requests for discovery unrelated to the remaining claim are DENIED. The request for discovery related to the remaining claim is DENIED. See ECF 286 (Ordering Plaintiff to refrain from making further filings in thi s case, except with respect to the remaining claim or upon direction from Judge Gorenstein). It is further ORDERED that the request to file an amended complaint is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration of the Opinion is DE NIED. A motion for reconsideration may be granted only "when the party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Farmer v. Uni ted States, No. 15 Civ. 6287, 2017 WL 3448014, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2014). Plaintiff's request does not identify new evidence that was not available when the Court issued the Opinion. The request also does not indicate a change in controllin g law or establish a clear error or manifest injustice in the Opinion. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 1/28/2020) (jca) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------X
:
TOWAKI KOMATSU,
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
:
-against:
:
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants. :
--------------------------------------------------------------X

1/28/2020

18 Civ. 3698 (LGS)
ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
WHEREAS, on January 15, 2020, pro se Plaintiff filed an emergency Order to Show
Cause and accompanying affidavit. ECF 307, 308. The Order requested discovery related to this
matter and for materials unrelated to the remaining claim;
WHEREAS, on January 15, 2020, the Second Circuit held that it lacks jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal of the Opinion, dated September 30, 2019, granting in part and
denying in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. ECF 239, 309;
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Opinion, and also filed a request to file an amended complaint. ECF 309;
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a request for discovery unrelated to the
remaining claim. ECF 310. It is hereby
ORDERED that the requests for discovery unrelated to the remaining claim are
DENIED. The request for discovery related to the remaining claim is DENIED. See ECF 286
(Ordering Plaintiff to refrain from making further filings in this case, except with respect to the
remaining claim or upon direction from Judge Gorenstein). It is further
ORDERED that the request to file an amended complaint is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration of the Opinion is DENIED. A motion

for reconsideration may be granted only “when the party identifies an intervening change in
controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.” Farmer v. United States, No. 15 Civ. 6287, 2017 WL 3448014, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2014). Plaintiff’s request does not identify new evidence that was not
available when the Court issued the Opinion. The request also does not indicate a change in
controlling law or establish a clear error or manifest injustice in the Opinion.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se
Plaintiff.

Dated: January 28, 2020
New York, New York

2