Booker v. Griffin et al

Filing 135

OPINION AND ORDER: re: 128 MOTION filed by Amin Doshawn Booker. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Clerkof the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 128 and to mail a copy of this Opinion to pro se Plaintiff and file proof of service on the docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 2/11/2019) (ama) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. Modified on 2/11/2019 (ama).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC.#:

:------::--:----/I '1.

DATE FILED: 2 /h

AMIN DOSHAWN BOOKER,
Plaintiff,
-againstTHOMAS GRIFFIN, Superintendent of Green Haven
Facility; E. DEMO, DOCCS Investigator; Paul
Chappius, Jr., Superintendent Elmira Facility; G.
KELLER, Captain at Elmira; M. K.IRK.P ATRICK,
Superintendent of Clinton; John Doe #1, Confidential
Informant; JOHN DOES #2-3., Correction Officers at
Green Haven; SGT. ISAACS, LT. SCRANTON;
CORRECTION OFFICER SEARS; KAREN
BELLAMY, Central Office Committee Director;
DONAL VENNETTOZZI, Director of SHU,
Defendants.

No. 16-CV-00072 (NSR)
OPINION & ORDER

NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge
Plaintiff Amin Doshawn Booker commenced this prose action pursuant 42 U.S.C. §
1983, alleging violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights in connection
with his incarceration at Green Haven and Elmira Correctional Facilities. (See Second Am.
Compl. ("Compl."), ECF No. 104.) Specifically, Plaintiff raises various challeng~s to his
placement in administrative segregation, the suspension of his visitation privileges, and the
denial of appropriate medical care during certain period of his incarceration.
On October 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction. (ECF No.
107.) 1 The Court, having considered Plaintiffs submissions, Defendants' opposition papers, and
Plaintiffs reply, denied Plaintiffs motion in its order issued on December 21, 2018.
("December Order," ECF No. 126.)

1
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss which is still under consideration by the Court on December 20,
2018. (ECFNo. 119.)

Presently before this Court is Plaintiffs motion for relief from the December Order
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) on January 31, 2019. (ECF No. 128.)
For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's request for relief under Rule 60(b) is DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARDS
Rule 60(b) provides that "[o]n motion and just terms," the court may relieve a pmiy from
a final judgment, order or proceeding based on five enumerated reasons or "any other reason that
justifies relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). However, Rule 60(b) applies only to "final" judgments.

Id.; In re Shengdatech, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. l 1-CV-1918 (LGS), 2015 WL 3422096, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2015). An order is final when it is appealable. In re Shengdatech, 2015 WL
3422096, at *3 (collecting cases). "A final judgment or order is one that conclusively determines
all pending claims of all the parties to the litigation, leaving nothing for the court to do but
execute its decision." Petrello v. White, 533 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2008). A denial of a motion
for preliminary injunction is not a final judgment. See Wiesner v. 321 West 16th Street

Associates, 00-CV-1423(RWS), 2000 WL 1585680, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2000).
Prose submissions "must be construed liberally and interpreted 'to raise the strongest
arguments that they suggest.'" Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471,474 (2d Cir.
2006) (quoting Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241,248 (2d Cir. 2006)) (emphasis omitted). Courts
utilize this policy for pro se submissions based on "the understanding that [i]mplicit in the right
of self-representation is an obligation on the part of the court to make reasonable allowances to
protect pro se litigants from inadve1ient forfeiture of important rights because of their lack of
legal training." Id. at 475 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

2

DISCUSSION
The Court cannot grant Plaintiff relief from the December Order under Rule 60(b)
because the December Order is not a final judgment. See Wiesner, 2000 WL 1585680, at* 1.
However, because the Court construes Plaintiffs motion for relief under Rule 60(b) as a motion
for reconsideration, it will consider his motion under Local Civil Rule 6.3 .2
As a threshold matter, Local Civil Rule 6.3 provides that a notice of motion for
reconsideration "shall be served within fourteen (14) days after entry of the Court's
determination of the original motion." Here, Plaintiffs motion was served well past the
appropriate period for seeking reconsideration. The Court entered its opinion on December 21,
2018, and Plaintiff did not file his motion for reconsideration until January 31, 2019. However,
in light of Plaintiffs prose status, the Court will examine the merits of his motion.
"The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 6.3 is
strict." Targum v. Citrin Cooperman & Co., LLP, No. 12-CV-6909(SAS), 2013 WL 6188339, at
*1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2013). "[R]econsideration will generally be denied unless the moving
party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked-matters, in other
words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Mahadeo
v. NY City Campaign Fin. Bd., 514 F. App'x 53, 55 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks

omitted) (citing Shrader v. CSXTransp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255,257 (2d Cir. 1995) ). Additionally, a
Rule 6.3 motion "cannot assert new arguments or claims which were not before the court in the
original motion." McGraw-Hill Glob. Educ. Holdings, LLC v. Mathrani, 293 F. Supp. 3d 394,
397 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2

"Motions for reconsideration are typically governed by Local Civil Rule 6.3 and the Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b)." Smith v. Underwood, No. 13-CV-8423(NSR), 2018 WL 3632522, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2018).

3

Plaintiff is unable to point to any controlling decision or overlooked information which
might reasonably be expected to alter the Court's December Order. First, Plaintiff alleges that
his reply declaration, memorandum and supporting exhibits were not filed and that the Court was
unable to consider them as part of its December Order. However, the Court did receive
Plaintiffs reply papers and considered them in drafting the December Order. 3 Moreover, upon
another review, there was nothing in Plaintiffs reply papers or supporting documents that would
have changed the December Order.
Second, Plaintiff alleges that the Court misstates his requests for relief, in that he
requested release from punitive confinement in SHU and relief from the deprivation of his
approved status for F .R.P. participation and general rights and privileges. The Court disagrees.
The Court determined Plaintiffs requests for relief from his Memorandum of Law in Support of
the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and found that Plaintiff requested (1) discontinuance of his
confinement in SHU; (2) transfer to "a New York hub correctional facility"; (3) reinstatement of
his approval status for the Family Reunion Program; and (4) discontinuance of retaliation against
Plaintiff and any inmate who testified or provided affidavits on Plaintiffs behalf. Booker v.

Griffin, No. 16-CV-0072(NSR), 2018 WL 6715559, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2018). These are
essentially identical to Plaintiffs statement of his requests. To the extent that the Court did not
consider his request for restoration of general rights and privileges, that would not have changed
the Court's denial of his motion.
Third, Plaintiff notes that the Court did not "give a finding of facts that was reached."
However, the Court cited to its statement of facts in its previous opinion and noted that
familiarity with the facts was presumed. Id. This is not an abnormal practice. See, e.g.,

3

The Court also sent said papers to Defendants' counsel.

4

Hargraves v. City of New York, No. 03-CV-1668(RRM(VMS), 03-CV-3869(RRM)(VMS), 03CV-5323(RRM)(VMS), 03-CV-4646(RRM)(VMS), 2014 WL 1271024, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar.
26, 2014); S.M v. Taconic Hills Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 11-CV-1085(LEK)(RFT), 2013 WL
2487171, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. June 10, 2013); Mitchell v. NY. State Dep 't of Corr. Serv., No. 06CV-6278(CJS), 2011 WL 6148598, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2011). Regardless, had the Court
included a recitation of the facts, the motion for preliminary injunction would still have been
denied.
The remainder of Plaintiffs allegations concern the merits of his due process and
retaliation claims. Plaintiff argues that the Comi overlooked certain facts and claims which the
Court expressly addressed in the December Order. 4 Additionally, Plaintiff claims that the Court
"overlooks controlling appellate comi decisions" but fails to provide any clues about those
alleged decisions. While it is true, as Plaintiff points out, that this Court denied Defendants'
motion to dismiss his due process claims, the standards for a motion to dismiss and a motion for
preliminary judgment are distinct. Plaintiffs due process claims survived the motion to dismiss
stage because he stated a plausible claim for relief solely based on the face of his complaint.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell At!. C01p. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). This is a much more lenient standard than that for a motion for preliminary judgment,
which requires the plaintiff to show that he will suffer irreparable hmm absent injunctive relief
and either is likely to succeed on the merits or is the favored party in a balance of hardships
analysis.

4
Plaintiff contends that the Court overlooked his claim that he was subjected to a disciplinary confinement
without sufficient evidence and based on previously dismissed and expunged misbehavior charges. In fact, the
Court addressed both of these facts. Booker v. Griffin, No. 16-CV-0072(NSR), 2018 WL 6715559, at *3 & n.3 -4
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2018). The Court also found that there was evidence that Plaintiffs confinement to SHU had
been subjected to multiple reviews. Id. at *3.

5

Even if Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration had been timely, which it was not, he failed
to meet the strict standards set by Local Rule 6.3.
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Clerk
of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 128 and to mail a copy
of this Opinion to pro se Plaintiff and file proof of service on the docket.

Dated:

Februaryl_L, 2019
White Plains, New York

SO ORDERED:

N ~
United States District Judge

6