Garcia v. Heath et al
Filing
213
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 196 JOINT MOTION for Reconsideration re; 195 Memorandum & Opinion, Add and Terminate Parties, Set Hearings filed by Felix Garcia, Eleggua Osun Elufe. The motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion. (Doc. #196). (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 10/25/2019) (rro)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------x
FELIX GARCIA, PHILIP CALDAROLA,
:
ELEGGUA OSUN ELUFE, WAYNE
:
NORRIS, JAMES JAMESON, ELMER
:
ORTIZ, AMAURY BONILLA, ERCREY
:
GRANGIER, KEVIN WILLIAMS,
:
BRANDON HOLMES, ROLANDO
:
CORONADO, PAUL THOMPSON, and
:
LAMONTE JOHNSON,
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
PHILIP D. HEATH, NOEL F. MORRIS, and
:
CANDICE P. SUMPTER,
:
Defendants.
:
--------------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
13 CV 8196 (VB)
Briccetti, J.:
Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. #196) of the Court’s
Opinion and Order dated September 9, 2019 (Doc. #195), in which the Court granted in part and
denied in part defendants’ motions for summary judgment.
For the reasons set forth below, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
The Court presumes the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this
case.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs argue the Court erred in dismissing Garcia’s and Elufe’s claims because there is
undisputed corroborating evidence they exhausted their administrative remedies.
The Court disagrees.
“To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must demonstrate ‘an
intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a
clear error or prevent manifest injustice.’” Catskill Dev., L.L.C. v. Park Place Entm’t Corp., 154
1
F. Supp. 2d 696, 701 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Doe v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 709 F.2d
782, 789 (2d Cir. 1983)). 1 Such a motion should be granted only when the Court has overlooked
facts or precedent that might have altered the conclusion reached in the earlier decision. Shrader
v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995); see SDNY Local Civil Rule 6.3. The
movant’s burden is weighty to avoid “wasteful repetition of arguments already briefed,
considered and decided.” Weissman v. Fruchtman, 124 F.R.D. 559, 560 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
The motion must be “narrowly construed and strictly applied in order to discourage
litigants from making repetitive arguments on issues that have been thoroughly considered by the
court.” Range Rd. Music, Inc., v. Music Sales Corp., 90 F. Supp. 2d 390, 391–92 (S.D.N.Y.
2000). Further, the motion “may not advance new facts, issues, or arguments not previously
presented to the court.” Randell v. United States, 64 F.3d 101, 109 (2d Cir. 1995). This
limitation ensures finality and “prevent[s] the practice of a losing party examining a decision and
then plugging the gaps of a lost motion with additional matters.” Carolco Pictures Inc. v. Sirota,
700 F. Supp. 169, 170 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
To withstand a motion for summary judgment premised on a failure to exhaust, a plaintiff
must offer more than conclusory allegations that he exhausted administrative remedies. Bennett
v. James, 737 F. Supp. 2d 219, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), aff’d, 441 F. App’x 816 (2d Cir. 2011)
(summary order). On a motion for summary judgment, a defendant has the burden of
demonstrating the plaintiff’s failure to exhaust. Hubbs v. Suffolk Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 788 F.3d
54, 59 (2d Cir. 2015). A defendant can meet that burden by submitting evidence that a grievance
process exists and applies to the underlying dispute. Id. If the defendant contends the plaintiff
1
Unless otherwise indicated, case quotations omit all internal citations, quotations,
footnotes, and alterations.
2
failed to properly exhaust, the defendant can submit evidence regarding the lack of grievances
filed. Chambers v. Johnpierre, 2016 WL 5745083, at *7 (D. Conn. Sept. 30, 2016). A plaintiff’s
bald assertions that he exhausted all available remedies “are insufficient to overcome a motion
for summary judgment, even for a pro se plaintiff.” Rodriguez v. Hahn, 209 F. Supp. 2d 344,
348 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Moreover, a court may consider evidence that a grievant properly
exhausted administrative remedies for other claims during the same time period as the dispute in
question. Moreau v. Peterson, 672 F. App’x 119, 120 (2d Cir. Jan. 12, 2017) (summary order)
(dicta).
Here, plaintiffs’ only evidence that Garcia and Elufe personally exhausted their
grievances is their own testimony. In addition, Garcia refers the Court to the deposition of
plaintiff Brandon Holmes, who testified Garcia helped him complete his grievance paperwork.
And Elufe argues he possessed a copy of the consolidated CORC decision. But because the copy
of the consolidated CORC decision does not list Elufe as a grievant, and because CORC has no
record of either Garcia’s or Elufe’s appeal, 2 the Court concludes it did not err in dismissing
either of their claims.
Plaintiffs also argue the Court improperly shifted the burden to plaintiffs on proving
exhaustion. The Court did no such thing. Defendants offered evidence—computer records and
custodian testimony—that DOCCS lacked records of either Garcia’s or Elufe’s appeals.
Defendants had the burden to prove failure to exhaust and they met that burden.
2
Plaintiffs ask this Court to infer “Defendants’ records concerning Plaintiffs’ failure to
fully appeal their grievances are incorrect, or were lost or destroyed.” (Pl. Br. at 5). But courts
in this Circuit have held, “[a] plaintiff’s unverifiable contention that his grievance or appeal must
have been lost or destroyed is generally not enough to defeat a motion for summary judgment.”
Bishop v. Presser, 2018 WL 7917915, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2018) (collecting cases) report
and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 442154 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2019). Accordingly, the
Court will not make such an inference here.
3
Moreover, plaintiffs argue the Court’s reliance on Moreau v. Peterson is misplaced. The
Court disagrees. In Moreau v. Peterson, the court upheld the district court’s dismissal of four of
plaintiff’s claims for failure to exhaust. Moreau v. Peterson, 672 F. App’x at 120. In a footnote,
the court indicated that plaintiff’s statement he was unable to file grievances was inconsistent
with his proven ability to file grievances in two of his six claims. Id. at n.1.
Here, Garcia’s ability to exhaust in other contemporaneous appeals indicates he knew
how to complete the grievance procedure. Moreau v. Peterson, 672 F. App’x at 120. Therefore,
it stands to reason plaintiff did not actually exhaust his administrative remedies in this instance.
Accordingly, the Court finds plaintiffs have not shown the need to correct a clear error or
prevent manifest injustice.
CONCLUSION
The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion. (Doc. #196).
Dated: October 25, 2019
White Plains, NY
SO ORDERED:
____________________________
Vincent L. Briccetti
United States District Judge
4
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?