Long v. Lain et al

Filing 50

ORDER denying 49 Motion to Reconsider Order Denying Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel. Plaintiff's application does not provide a basis for reconsideration. Therefore, the Court denies his letter motion (ECF No. 49 ) seeking reconsideration of the Court's prior decision denying the appointment of pro bono counsel Plaintiff will proceed with the case pro se. Signed by Hon. Mark W. Pedersen on 9/4/20. (Pedersen, Mark)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

Case 6:16-cv-06531-EAW-MJP Document 50 Filed 09/04/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________________
VINCENT LONG
PLAINTIFF,
vs.

ORDER
16-CV-6531-EAW-MJP

MAJOR CHRISTOPHER LAIN, et al.,
DEFENDANT.

_____________________________________________
Pedersen, M.J. Following Plaintiff’s complaints about his then-pro bono
counsel, the Court held a conference with counsel and granted pro bono counsel’s
request to withdraw. Shortly after the conference, on August 4, 2020, the Court issued
an Order denying Plaintiff’s request to appoint new pro bono counsel. Now before the
Court is Plaintiff’s letter motion of August 6, 2020 (ECF No. 49), requesting that the
Court reconsider it’s Order denying new counsel. Plaintiff’s stated reason for
reconsideration is:
The reason I need an attorney is shown by my last letter. Your Honor
that letter was not intended to be taken as mean or nasty. Can[’]t
remember how you put it. Like texting no emotion. I am very much not
politically correct. I had an attorney tell me once I believe you and I
understand what you want to say[.]Please he said let me do the talking,
because you will not come across the way you think you will. Long story
short. People don't understand me...
So please your Honor I really need help communicating with the court.
I need an appointed attorney.
(Letter from Vincent Long (Aug. 3, 2020) to the Court 1, ECF No. 49.)
On a motion made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, the Court “may
relieve a party … from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
reasons:

Case 6:16-cv-06531-EAW-MJP Document 50 Filed 09/04/20 Page 2 of 2

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not
have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

extrinsic),

(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based
on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)–(6). However, “[r]econsideration of a court’s previous order is
an ‘extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and
conservation of scarce judicial resources.’” Parrish v. Sollecito, 253 F. Supp. 2d 713,
715 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (quoting In re Health Management Systems Inc. Secs. Litig., 113
F. Supp. 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y.2000)).
Plaintiff’s application does not provide a basis for reconsideration. Therefore,
the Court denies his letter motion (ECF No. 49) seeking reconsideration of the Court’s
prior decision denying the appointment of pro bono counsel Plaintiff will proceed with
the case pro se.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 4, 2020
Rochester, New York

Mark W. Pedersen
United States Magistrate Judge