O'Connell v. Town of Farmington

Full title: THOMAS W. O'CONNELL, Plaintiff v. TOWN OF FARMINGTON, DANIEL O'BINE LEWIS…

Court: United States District Court, W.D. New York

Date published: Feb 19, 2004

02-CV-6205 CJS (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2004)

Opinion

02-CV-6205 CJS.

February 19, 2004

Thomas W. O'Connell, pro se, Palmyra, New York, For the plaintiff.

Anthony M. Sortino, Esq., Gallo Iacovangelo, LLP Rochester, New York, For defendants Town of Farmington, Daniel O'Bine, Lewis Martz, Barbara Bounds, and Charles Cooksey.

Melanie L. Sarkis, Esq., Trevett, Lenweaver Salzer, PC Rochester, New York, For defendant Philip Sykes.

DECISION AND ORDER

CHARLES SIRAGUSA, District Judge

INTRODUCTION

This is an action alleging federal constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, as well as state causes of action. Now before the Court is plaintiff's motion [#42] for reconsideration of the Court's Decision and Order [#41] which dismissed certain claims. For the reasons that follow, the application is denied.

BACKGROUND

The facts of this case were set forth in the Court's previous Decision and Order, filed on January 21, 2004, and need not be repeated here. In that Decision and Order, the Court dismissed plaintiff's claims concerning alleged acts by defendants Bounds and Cooksey. On February 3, 2004, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for reconsideration. The motion states that it is brought pursuant to Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, however, that rule does not provide for the relief plaintiff seeks. Accordingly, the Court will treat the motion as one pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). One of the claims that the Court dismissed in its prior Decision and Order involved allegations that Cooksey, a Town Judge, had improperly upbraided plaintiff for having made harassing phone calls to Cooksey's home and to his law clerk. In support of the motion now before the Court, plaintiff denies that he made those phone calls. Apart from this argument, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration consists of the same arguments that he previously made, supplemented by exhibits that have little or no discernible bearing on this action.¹

1 For example, plaintiff has submitted a complaint used in an action filed in this Court in 1993, entitled Provoost-Mayo v. Village of Palmyra, 93-CV-6509T, and a Decision and Order in that case by the Honorable Michael A. Telesca, Senior United States District Judge, concerning an application for attorney's fees. Plaintiff also refers to new alleged incidents of harassment that are not part of this action, and which if they were would not change the Court's decision.

ANALYSIS

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a mechanism for a Court to revisit an order on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or the like. Here, plaintiff's primary argument is that he never made harassing phone calls to Cooksey. However, this Court never found that he had. Instead, the Court found that Cooksey was acting within his authority as a town judge when he reprimanded plaintiff for having made the phone calls. Frankly, it is irrelevant to the Court's decision whether or not plaintiff actually made the phone calls, since Cooksey believed that he had done so.² Even if it could be shown that Cooksey was wrong in that belief, he is still entitled to judicial immunity. Apart from the argument concerning the alleged phone calls to Cooksey, plaintiff has essentially repackaged his earlier arguments which the Court rejected. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Court's prior ruling was incorrect as a matter of law, nor has he otherwise shown that he is entitled to the relief he seeks.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied.

SO ORDERED.