Opinion
1:18-CV-8353 (CM)
11-15-2019
CURTIS WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK, Defendants.
ORDER :
Plaintiff, who is incarcerated and proceeds in forma pauperis, brought this action pro se. By order and judgment dated April 17, 2019, and entered the next day, the Court dismissed this action. It dismissed Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of New York - the sole defendant - as frivolous, for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and for seeking monetary relief from a defendant that is immune from such relief. (ECF 7, p. 2-3.) It also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff was asserting. (Id. p. 3-4.)
On or about April 24, 2019, Plaintiff submitted to the Court an "Affidavit in Support of Plaintiff Objection to Order to Dismiss." (ECF 10.) In this submission, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration, and asks the Court to allow him to file an amended complaint to name individuals as defendants. The Court construes Plaintiff's submission as a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion.
DISCUSSION
The standards governing a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) and a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 are the same. R.F.M.A.S., Inc. v. Mimi So, 640 F. Supp. 2d 506, 508 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). The movant must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that had been previously put before it. Id. at 509; see Padilla v. Maersk Line, Ltd., 636 F. Supp. 2d 256, 258 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). "Such motions must be narrowly construed and strictly applied in order to discourage litigants from making repetitive arguments on issues that have been thoroughly considered by the court." Range Road Music, Inc. v. Music Sales Corp., 90 F. Supp. 2d 390, 391-92 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); see also SimplexGrinnell LP v. Integrated Sys. & Power, Inc., 642 F. Supp. 2d 206, 210 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ("[A] motion for reconsideration is not an invitation to parties to treat the court's initial decision as the opening of a dialogue in which [a] party may then use such a motion to advance new theories or adduce new evidence in response to the court's ruling.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In its April 17, 2019 order, the Court noted that Plaintiff alleged in his original complaint "that on an unspecified date, while he was incarcerated in the Green Haven Correctional Facility, multiple prisoners attacked him in that prison's yard." (ECF 7, p. 2.) The Court also noted that Plaintiff alleged "that the other prisoners attacked him because there were only three correctional officers assigned to the yard." (Id.) Plaintiff did not name any individuals as defendants. And he made clear in his original complaint that he was suing the State of New York - the sole defendant - "for negligence, mental anguish [and] pain [and] suffering . . . [f]or failure to provide a safe environment." (ECF 2, p. 5.)
In Plaintiff's current motion, Plaintiff states - for the first time in this action - that (1) he is asserting claims, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, of violations of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, (2) the events that are the basis of his claims occurred on January 7, 2017, and that on that date he "was stabbed in my lower back [and] abdomen[] [and] cut in my face [and] almost died in the H-Block yard . . . of Green Haven Correctional Facility," and (3) Jamie Lamanna, the Green Haven Superintendent, and Anthony Annucci, the Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, "were aware of numerous inmates getting stabbed [and] cut with metal object[s] [and] they failed to protect Plaintiff by getting a metal detector [and] having us cleared [through] such[] before we go to the recreation to minimize stabbing [and] cuts in such yard." (ECF 10, p. 2.) Plaintiff asserts that the alleged actions of Lamanna and Annucci constitute "deliberate indifference to Plaintiff['s] safety [and] well being." (Id.)
Plaintiff asks for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of this action, and for leave to file an amended complaint in which he names Lamanna and Annucci as defendants. (Id. p. 2-3.) In making these requests, he asserts that he is a "serious 1 mental health patient [and] lack[s] [a] law degree." (Id. p. 3.)
In light of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court grants Plaintiff relief under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3. Accordingly, the Court vacates its April 17, 2019 order and judgment. The Court also grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint in which he (1) names Lamanna, Annucci, and any other relevant individuals as defendants, and (2) alleges facts to state a plausible claim under § 1983.
CONCLUSION
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. The Court construes Plaintiff's submission that was received by the Court on May 1, 2019, as a motion for relief from an order or judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3. (ECF No. 10.) The Court grants the motion.
The Court vacates its April 17, 2019 order and judgment. The Court also grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to this Court's Pro Se Intake Unit within thirty days of the date of this order, caption the document as an "Amended Complaint," and label the document with docket number 18-CV-8353 (CM). An Amended Civil Rights Complaint form is attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the Court will dismiss this action as frivolous, for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and for seeking monetary relief from a defendant that is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii), (iii).
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).
The Court also directs the Clerk of Court to docket this order as a "written opinion" within the meaning of Section 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 15, 2019
New York, New York
/s/_________
COLLEEN McMAHON
Chief United States District Judge