McRae v. Lee et al

Filing 37

DECISION & ORDER denying 34 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Hon. Marian W. Payson on 5/23/2017. Copy of this Decision & Order sent by First Class Mail to plaintiff Troy McRae on 5/23/2017. (KAH)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _______________________________________ TROY McRAE, DECISION & ORDER Plaintiff, 15-CV-6009G v. DR. LEE, et al., Defendants. _______________________________________ Plaintiff Troy McRae (“McRae”), acting pro se, filed a complaint asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against several defendants employed by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) or within DOCCS facilities alleging, inter alia, that defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated. (Docket # 1). Currently pending before this Court is McRae’s motion for reconsideration of this Court’s previous Decision & Order denying his request for fees in connection with the litigation. (Docket ## 33, 34). In his motion, McRae seeks an award of fees for the time he must expend to attend his own deposition. (Docket # 34). According to McRae, defendants should be limited to obtaining trial testimony from him, and he should be compensated for any time he expends at a deposition noticed by the defendants. (Id.). In his motion, McRae simply seeks to relitigate this Court’s previous determination. (Id.). Yet, relitigation of previously decided issues is “not a proper basis for a motion for reconsideration,” and denial of the motion is warranted. See Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. ex rel. Milton Fabrics, Inc. v. Nat’l Wholesale Liquidators, 2003 WL 22455321, *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), aff’d, 101 F. App’x 860 (2d Cir. 2004). In any event, Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits litigants to depose opposing parties upon notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30. Although non-party witnesses generally are entitled to statutory fees for attendance at a deposition, see 28 U.S.C. § 1821(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1), as stated in my previous decision, McRae, as a litigant to this action, is not entitled to witness fees to attend his own deposition. See Stooksbury v. Ross, 2012 WL 2128026, *2 (E.D. Tenn. 2012) (“[d]efendant . . . , as a party to this action, is not entitled to attendance fees and mileage”) (collecting cases). Even if McRae’s status as a party to this action did not disqualify him from receiving statutory witness fees, his status as an incarcerated inmate would preclude his request for such fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1821(f). McRae has not provided any basis for me to reconsider my previous decision denying his request for fees. Accordingly, McRae’s motion for reconsideration (Docket # 34) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Marian W. Payson MARIAN W. PAYSON United States Magistrate Judge Dated: Rochester, New York May 23, 2017 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?