From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Nov 3, 2017
17-cv-1851 (ENV) (LB) (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2017)

Opinion

16-cv-6655 (ENV) (LB) 16-cv-7150 (ENV) (LB) 17-cv-1851 (ENV) (LB) 17-cv-1894 (ENV) (LB) 17-cv-1939 (ENV) (LB) 17-cv-2046 (ENV) (LB) 17-cv-2086 (ENV) (LB) 17-cv-2111 (ENV) (LB) 17-cv-2150 (ENV) (LB) 17-cv-2703 (ENV) (LB)

11-03-2017

JORGE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendant. JORGE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. L&M BUS CORP., Defendant. JORGE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant. JORGE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Defendant. JORGE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. KINGS COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE, Defendant. JORGE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. GAMESTOP, Defendant. JORGE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. JORGE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY NYPD, DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CENTER, and NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT 84th PRECINCT, Defendants. JORGE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. CHASE BANK, Defendant. JORGE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. SPRINT, Defendant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MEMORANDUM & ORDER VITALIANO, D.J.

Pro se plaintiff Jorge Rodriguez's motion, filed October 30, 2017, which seeks reconsideration of the Court's October 19, 2017, order dismissing each of the above-captioned consolidated actions, is denied because he again makes no showing of the Court's misapprehension of facts or law, at the time of its rulings, which would require the Court to revisit its prior decisions. See Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). For the same reasons, plaintiff's "letter of explanation," filed October 31, 2017, which the Court construes as a second motion for reconsideration of the Court's October 19, 2017 order, is denied. Id.

Rodriguez has also appealed the Court's October 26, 2017, order denying a motion for reconsideration of the Court's September 11, 2017, orders dismissing his various cases. The Court can nevertheless consider the motions at issue in this case. The Second Circuit has explicitly noted that while "the docketing of a notice of appeal ousts the district court of jurisdiction except insofar as it is reserved to it explicitly by statute or rule[,] District Courts may "entertain and deny the Rule 60(b) motion." Toliver v. Cty. of Sullivan, 957 F.2d 47, 49 (2d Cir. 1992) (per curiam).

The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeals would not be taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeals. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45, 82 S. Ct. 917, 920-21, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962).

The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain these consolidated cases on the closed docket.

The Court also acknowledges Plaintiff's letter withdrawing his motion for reconsideration as to 17-cv-2041, 17-cv-2042, 17-cv-2043, and 17-cv-2044. --------

So Ordered. Dated: Brooklyn, New York

November 3, 2017

/s/ USDJ ERIC N. VITALIANO

ERIC N. VITALIANO

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Nov 3, 2017
17-cv-1851 (ENV) (LB) (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2017)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation

Case Details

Full title:JORGE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendant…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Nov 3, 2017

Citations

17-cv-1851 (ENV) (LB) (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2017)