Philippeaux v. United States of America

Filing 40

ORDER denying 39 Motion for Reconsideration: Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the Order under Rule 59(e) is denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. 39 and mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 3/20/2020) (jwh) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

USDC-SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
DATE FILED: 3/20/20

PHILANDER PHILIPPEAUX,
Petitioner,

18-CV-5974 (RA)
ORDER

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge:

On March 16, 2020, Petitioner Philander Philippeaux filed a motion to alter or amend the
Court’s Order dated March 9, 2020 (the “Order,” see Dkt. 38) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). See Dkt. 39 (“Mot.”). Plaintiff contends that the Order, adopting the January 7,
2020 Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Netburn (the “Report, see Dkt.
28) “overlooked controlling decisions and factual matters.” Mot. at 1. For the reasons that
follow, Petitioner’s motion is denied.
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.” In re Health
Mgmt. Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (citation omitted). “The
decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the
district court.” Corines v. Am. Physicians Ins. Tr., 769 F. Supp. 2d 584, 594 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
Motions for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) are properly granted only upon a showing of “an
intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a
clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956
F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992). The standard “is strict, and reconsideration will generally be
denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court

overlooked.” Compunnel Software Grp., Inc. v. Gupta, No. 14-CV-4790 (RA), 2019 WL
2174085, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2019) (quoting Bldg. Serv. 32BJ Health Fund v. GCA Servs.
Grp., Inc., No. 15-CV-6114 (PAE), 2017 WL 1283843, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2017)); see also
Shrader v. CSXTransp., 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.”);
Weiss v. City of New York, No. 96-CV-8281 (LTS) (MHD), 2003 WL 21414309, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
June 19, 2003) (“[R]econsideration is generally denied as a Rule 59(e) motion is not a vehicle for
reargument or asserting arguments that could or should have been made before judgment
issued.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Petitioner does not assert any “intervening change in controlling law” or new evidence.
Nor does Petitioner clearly articulate a “need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.” Rather, Petitioner contends that the Court “overlooked” certain facts that he had
raised in his underlying § 2255 motion, such as his claim that a “fraud” had been “perpetuated
upon the Court” by the Government’s alleged use of a “fake phone number.” See Mot. at 1. The
Court, however, specifically addressed Petitioner’s argument that jurisdiction and venue “were
fraudulently obtained through allegedly ‘false’ phone records” in its Order, and found “no clear
error in Judge Netburn’s conclusion that jurisdiction and venue were proper––and not
fraudulently obtained––in the underlying criminal case.” See Order at 4. The Court in no way
“overlooked” this argument or any facts pertaining to it.
Petitioner also asserts that the Court “overlooked the law governing the habeas corpus
proceeding,” “the rules of 28 U.S.C. § 2255,” and “the law governing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.” See
Mot. at 2. Both the Order and the Report applied the correct legal standards in denying
Petitioner’s § 2255 motion, as well as his collateral motions. Petitioner offers no “controlling

2

decisions or data that the court overlooked” in doing so. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to alter
or amend the Order under Rule 59(e) is denied.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. 39 and
mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 20, 2020
New York, New York
Ronnie Abrams
United States District Judge

3