Franza v. Stanford et al

Filing 112

ORDER denying 108 Motion for Reconsideration filed by Dominic M. Franza, 85 MOTION to Dismiss . filed by Walter William Smith, Jr., Sally Velasquez-Thompson, Tina M. Stanford, Otis Cruze, Edward M. Sharkey, Gail Hallerdin. For th e foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs third Motion for Reconsideration is denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending Motion and mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the address listed on the docket. (Dkt. No. 108.) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 9/7/2021) (tg) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

Case 7:16-cv-07635-KMK Document 112 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DOMINIC M. FRANZA,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 16-CV-7635 (KMK)

TINA M. STANFORD; EDWARD M.
SHARKEY; OTIS CRUZE; SALLY
VELASQUEZ-THOMPSON; GAIL
HALLERDIN; WALTER WILLIAM
SMITH, JR.,

ORDER

Defendants.
KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge:
Pro se Plaintiff Dominic M. Franza (“Plaintiff”) brought an Action, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, against New York State Board of Parole Chairwoman Tina M. Stanford
(“Stanford”) and Commissioners Edward M. Sharkey (“Sharkey”), Otis Cruze (“Cruze”), Sally
Velasquez-Thompson (“Velasquez-Thompson”), Gail Hallerdin (“Hallerdin”), and Walter
William Smith, Jr. (“Smith”) (collectively, “Defendants”). (See Fourth Am. Compl. (“FAC”)
(Dkt. No. 80).) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his rights under the Fourteenth and
Eight Amendments of the United States Constitution when they determined his eligibility for
parole and evaluated his appeal of that determination based upon an invalidly formulated and
adopted decision-making procedure, 9 NYCRR § 8002.3. (See generally id.) On July 12, 2018,
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 85). On February 5, 2019, the Court issued an
Opinion & Order that granted the Motion to Dismiss, dismissing Plaintiff’s claims with
prejudice. (“Opinion & Order” (Dkt. No. 96).) On February 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion
for reconsideration and his supporting papers. (Dkt. Nos. 98–99.) On April 25, 2019, the Court
denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 102.) Over two years later, on May 11,

Case 7:16-cv-07635-KMK Document 112 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 5

2021, Plaintiff filed a second motion for reconsideration and his supporting papers. (Dkt. Nos.
103–04.) On May 25, 2021, Defendants filed an opposition. (Dkt. No. 105.) On June 28, 2021,
the Court denied Plaintiff’s second motion for reconsideration (the “Order.”) (Dkt. No. 107.)
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s third Motion for Reconsideration (the “Motion”) of the
Court’s Order filed on July 9, 2021, which Defendants opposed on July 19, 2021. (Dkt. Nos.
108–110.) On July 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Reply. (Dkt. No. 111.) For the reasons discussed
below, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied.
I. Discussion
“Motions for reconsideration are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and
Local Civil Rule 6.3, which are meant to ensure the finality of decisions and to prevent the
practice of a losing party examining a decision and then plugging the gaps of a lost motion with
additional matters.” Arthur Glick Truck Sales, Inc. v. Stuphen E. Corp, 965 F. Supp. 2d 402, 404
(S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted), aff’d, 577 F. App’x 11 (2d Cir. 2014).
The standard for such motions is “strict” and “should not be granted where the moving party
seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255,
257 (2d Cir. 1995); see also In re Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., No. 14-MC-2543,
2017 WL 3443623, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2017) (“It is well established that the rules
permitting motions for reconsideration must be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to
avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the [c]ourt.” (citation and
quotation marks omitted)). A movant may not “rely upon facts, issues, or arguments that were
previously available but not presented to the court.” Indergit v. Rite Aid Corp., 52 F. Supp. 3d
522, 523 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (citation omitted). Nor is a motion for reconsideration “the proper
avenue for the submission of new material.” Sys. Mgmt. Arts, Inc. v. Avesta Tech., Inc., 106 F.

Case 7:16-cv-07635-KMK Document 112 Filed 09/07/21 Page 3 of 5

Supp. 2d 519, 521 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). “Rather, to be entitled to reconsideration, a movant must
demonstrate that the [c]ourt overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put
before it on the underlying motion, which, had they been considered might reasonably have
altered the result reached by the court.” Arthur Glick Truck Sales, 965 F. Supp. 2d at 405
(citation and quotation marks omitted); Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257 (same). In other words, “[a]
motion for reconsideration should be granted only when the [movant] identifies an intervening
change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or
prevent manifest injustice.” Alvarez v. City of New York, No. 11-CV-5464, 2017 WL 6033425,
at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2017) (quoting Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL
Irrevocable Tr., 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013)); see also Indergit, 52 F. Supp. 3d at 523.
Here, Plaintiff has identified no intervening change of controlling law, availability of new
evidence, or need to correct a clear error. See Alvarez, 2017 WL 6033425, at *2. Instead,
Plaintiff reiterates the same arguments that were expressly considered and rejected in the Court’s
Order. (See generally, Order (Dkt. No. 107).) This is the third attempt by Plaintiff to relitigate
the same issues that were resolved by the Court’s Opinion & Order and in the subsequent orders
ruling on his two prior motions for reconsideration. (Dkt. Nos. 96, 102, 107.) Now, Plaintiff
requests reconsideration for a third time because he alleges that the Court improperly analyzed
his second motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local
Rule 6.3, instead of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). (See Dkt. Nos. 103, 109.) But
Plaintiff is mistaken, the Court may “ignore the legal label that a pro se litigant attaches to a
motion and recharacterize the motion in order to place it within a different legal category . . . to
create a better correspondence between the substance of a pro se motion’s claim and its
underlying legal basis.” Castro v. U.S., 540 U.S. 375, 381–82, (2003). Thus, without more,

Case 7:16-cv-07635-KMK Document 112 Filed 09/07/21 Page 4 of 5

Plaintiff again “seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided,” Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257,
pointing to no issue that the Court did not expressly consider and no case law or fact that the
Court overlooked, the Motion is denied. See Cyrus v. City of New York, 450 F. App’x 24, 26 (2d
Cir. 2011) (affirming denial of motion for reconsideration where the plaintiff “fail[ed] to point to
any case law or other relevant information that the district court overlooked,” and his arguments
merely “amount[ed] to a disagreement with the district court’s conclusions with respect to the
case law that was already before it”); Bryant v. AB Droit Audiovisuels, No. 07-CV-6395, 2017
WL 2954764, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2017) (“[A] party’s disagreement with a [c]ourt’s
decision is simply not a basis for reconsideration.”); Women’s Integrated Network, Inc. v. U.S.
Specialty Ins. Co., No. 08-CV-10518, 2011 WL 1347001, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2011) (“The
Court will not re-litigate the merits of the underlying dispute on a motion for reconsideration.”),
aff’d, 495 F. App’x 129 (2d Cir. 2012); Grand Crossing, L.P. v. U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co., No.
03-CV-5429, 2008 WL 4525400, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2008) (“Because [the] [p]laintiff[]
present[s] no new factual information or law that requires a different outcome in the underlying
motion, reconsideration is inappropriate.” (citation omitted)); Davidson v. Scully, 172 F. Supp.
2d 458, 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (“Although plaintiff might see this motion as a way to vent his
frustration and point out where he believes the Court erred in its reasoning, that is not the
purpose of a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration.”). Even had the Court analyzed Plaintiff’s
second motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), the result
would have been the same given that Plaintiff’s arguments are wholly conclusory, the arguments
raised in the prior two motions for reconsideration were addressed previously by the Court when
it denied both of them, see Dkt. Nos. 102, 107, and while there is not a specific deadline to file a
Rule 60(b)(4) motion, it still must be filed within a “reasonable time.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60.

Case 7:16-cv-07635-KMK Document 112 Filed 09/07/21 Page 5 of 5

Further, Plaintiff offers no explanation as to why he filed his May 11, 2021 motion over two
years after the Court issued its February 5, 2019 Opinion & Order. (See Dkt. No. 104.)
II. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff’s third Motion for Reconsideration is denied. The
Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending Motion and mail a copy of this
Order to Plaintiff at the address listed on the docket. (Dkt. No. 108.)
SO ORDERED.
DATED:

_

September 7, 2021
White Plains, New York
____________________________________
KENNETH M. KARAS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE