DeCarlis v. New York State Retirement System et al

Filing 10

DECISION AND ORDER. For the reasons stated in the Decision and Order, Plaintiff's 9 letter motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 5/9/19. (GMS) A copy of the Decision and Order has been mailed to the pro se plaintiff.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
VALAIDA DeCARLIS,
Plaintiff,
Case # 18-CV-6409-FPG
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
NEW YORK STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al.,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Pro se Plaintiff Valaida DeCarlis brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Defendants New York State Retirement System (“NYSRS”), Administrative Law Judge Paul
Kehoe (“the ALJ”), Robert Coughlon, Esq., Dana S. Reill, Esq., Executive Deputy Comptroller
Colleen Gardner, Louis Nunez, M.D., and Allan Smiley, M.D., alleging that Defendants
improperly denied her New York State retirement disability benefits. In her Amended Complaint,
she asked this Court to review that denial and award her retroactive benefits as well as
compensatory and punitive damages. ECF No. 5.
The Court screened Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with respect to the 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)
criteria. Because it sought relitigation of matters already adjudicated in a state court proceeding
and otherwise failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court dismissed the Amended
Complaint with prejudice. ECF No. 7.
By letter-motion, Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal order. ECF
No. 9. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

DISCUSSION
“The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is ‘strict, and reconsideration 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.’” Abdallah v. Napolitano, 909 F. Supp. 2d 196, 211 (W.D.N.Y. 2012)
(quoting Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)). “A movant for
reconsideration bears the heavy burden of demonstrating that there has been an intervening change
of controlling law, that new evidence has become available, or that there is a need to correct a clear
error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. at 211-12.
Plaintiff fails to meet this heavy burden.

In fact, she makes no arguments on

reconsideration other than to insist that she is disabled.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration (ECF No. 9) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 9, 2019
Rochester, New York

______________________________________
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court

2