Opinion
03-CV-927S.
February 1, 2005
ORDER
1. Plaintiff Victor Clarke Ford, Jr, a former inmate at Attica Correctional Facility ("Attica"), commenced this pro se action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York on December 11, 2003.
2. On March 18, 2004, the Honorable Michael A. Telesca, United States District Judge, filed an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis. In addition, Judge Telesca granted Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint, subject to certain conditions. Specifically, Judge Telesca's Order directed that in the event that Plaintiff failed to file the Amended Complaint on or before April 1, 2004, the claims set forth in the First through Fifth Causes of Action be dismissed with prejudice and that Defendants T.G. Eagen and K. Bellamy be terminated as parties in this case. Among other things, the Order set forth, in detail, the necessary elements of an Eighth Amendment claim based on deliberate indifference to a prisoner's medical needs. Lastly, Judge Telesca ordered the Clerk of the Court to cause the United States Marshal to effectuate service upon Defendant James Conway, Richard A. Savage, and Glenn S. Goord.
3. Plaintiff failed to file an Amended Complaint by April 1, 2004, as directed. Accordingly, by Order entered on June 8, 2004, this Court dismissed with prejudice the first five Causes of Action asserted in the Original Complaint, including Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim based on deliberate indifference to his medical needs. By the same Order, the Clerk of the Court was directed to terminate Defendants Eagan and Bellamy as parties to this action. The sole surviving Cause of Action from the Original Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was held in custody beyond his release date.
4. Thereafter, On June 21, 2004, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint. By Order entered on July 15, 2004, this Court directed Plaintiff to file a Proposed Amended Complaint to determine if an amendment would be futile.
5. Plaintiff filed a Proposed Amended Complaint on August 4, 2004. Therein, Plaintiff asserted a new Eighth Amendment claim, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Defendant Conway and a Proposed Defendant, Jose Deperio, based on their alleged failure to provide Plaintiff adequate medical care.
6. By Order entered on December 29, 2004, this Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint on the basis that the Proposed Amended Complaint could not withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), and therefore, an amendment would be futile.
7. On January 7, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Order Denying his Motion to Amend the Complaint.
8. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for motions for reconsideration. Traditionally, courts treat such motions under the scope of Rule 59(e), which provides for alteration or amendment of a judgment as long as such motion is filed not later than ten days from the entry of the judgment.See, e.g., Cray v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 192 F. Supp. 2d 37, 38 n. 1 (W.D.N.Y. 2001).
However, "[a] Rule 59(e) motion . . . is not intended as a vehicle for a party dissatisfied with the Court's ruling to advance new theories that the movant failed to advance in connection with the underlying motion, nor to secure a rehearing on the merits with regard to issues already decided." Parrish v. Sollecito, No. 01 CIV. 5420, 2003 WL 1618137, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2003). Rule 59(e) permits reconsideration of a prior decision when there has been an intervening change in the law, new evidence becomes available, or there is a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Patterson-Stevens, Inc. v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, 164 F.R.D. 4, 6 (W.D.N.Y. 1995); Cray, 192 F. Supp. 2d at 39 (collecting cases). The decision to grant a Rule 59(e) motion is within the sound discretion of the court.New York v. Holiday Inns, Inc., No. 83-CV-564S, 1993 WL 30933, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. 1993) (Skretny, J.).
Here, Plaintiff does not draw this Court's attention to an intervening change in law, new evidence, or the existence of clear error or manifest injustice. Instead, Plaintiff provides further argument on the issues previously decided. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
IT HEREBY IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 26) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.