Humbach v. Canon et al
Filing
79
OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (dkt. no. 48) and subsequent submissions (dkt. nos. 53 and 54) fail to present controlling decisions or data the Court overlooked. Rather, Plaintiff recapitulates arguments previously ma de, namely, that difficulties associated with Plaintiff's incarceration (e.g., limited access to writing instruments and resources) preclude Plaintiff from appropriately prosecuting the instant case. The Court's prior ruling denying Plainti ff's motion to stay this action considered those arguments and found them to be unpersuasive. Instead, the Court finds currency in Defendants' position that countless inmates in substantially-identical circumstances routinely prosecute Sec tion 1983 cases pro se. The limitations Plaintiff may face while incarcerated are not unique, and, barring something more, the Court is not willing to stay this action. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion and will allow the matter to proceed apace. The Court will issue a decision on the pending motions to dismiss in the ordinary course. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 10/29/2014) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (mml)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------- )(
MIRIAM RUMBACH,
13-CV-2512 (NSR)
OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiff,
-againstDANIEL CANON, et al.,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------
)(
NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge
By letter dated July 19, 2014 (dkt. no. 48), Plaintiff Miriam Rumbach ("Plaintiff') moves
for reconsideration of the Coutt's July 17, 2014 denial of Plaintiff's motion to stay this action.
Plaintiff continues to seek a stay of at least one year.
A. Applicable Standard
Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b). The standard is strict. Targum v. Citrin Cooperman & Co., No. 12-cv6909, 2013 WL 6188339, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2013). Reconsideration "is an extraordinary
remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial
resources." Allen v. Antal, No. 12-cv-8024, 2014 WL 2526913, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2014).
Such motions "will generally be denied unless the moving patty can point to controlling
decisions or data that the court overlooked and that might reasonably be expected to alter the
conclusion reached by the court." In re Optimal US. Litig., 886 F. Supp. 2d 298, 311-12
(S.D.N.Y. 2012); accord Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 39, 52 (2d
r;=====c=====ยท--USDC SD:\Y
DOClJi\IEJ'\"f
ELECTRONICALLY FILLD
DOC#:
\
,
DATE FILED: ' 0 .) "\ \:J.>01 l!
'
j
Copies
i0raxoa-
lo \d-'\ \;>-o\<.\
Chambers ofNelson.s. Roman, U.S.D.J.
Cir. 2012). Alternatively, a court may grant a motion for reconsideration to "correct a clear error
or prevent manifest injustice." Optimal, 886 F. Supp. 2d at 312.
"Local Rule 6.3 is to be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive
arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the court." Sys. Mgmt. Arts Inc. v. Avesta
Techs, Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 509, 521 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). "New arguments which could have been
raised previously may not be raised on a motion for reconsideration." Thypin Steel Co. v.
Certain Bills ofLading, No. 96-cv-2166, 1999 WL 108728, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 1999).
B. Analysis
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (dkt. no. 48) and subsequent submissions (dkt. nos.
53 and 54) fail to present controlling decisions or data the Court overlooked. Rather, Plaintiff
recapitulates arguments previously made, namely, that difficulties associated with Plaintiffs
incarceration (e.g., limited access to writing instruments and resources) preclude Plaintiff from
appropriately prosecuting the instant case. The Court's prior ruling denying Plaintiffs motion to
stay this action considered those arguments and found them to be unpersuasive. Instead, the
Coutt finds currency in Defendants' position that countless inmates in substantially-identical
circumstances routinely prosecute Section 1983 cases prose. The limitations Plaintiff may face
while incarcerated are not unique, and, barring something more, the Coutt is not willing to stay
this action. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion and will allow the matter to
proceed apace. The Court will issue a decision on the pending motions to dismiss in the ordinary
course.
Dated: October 29, 2014
White Plains, New York
2
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?