Steplight v. New York City Department of Transportation, No. 1:2012cv00113 - Document 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)
Court Description: OPINION: re: 21 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 20 Clerk's Judgment,. filed by Taleetha Steplight. In Steplight's form motion for reconsideration, she provides no proper ground for reconsideration. She points to no law or fact that the c ourt overlooked. Instead, she requests that the court order that the Department of Transportation to conduct a "real investigation" of her mistreatment. She also asserts that a proper investigation would avoid the statute of limitations on her claim, but she does not explain how or why this result is possible under the law or the facts of her case. And the court already addressed the statute of limitations in its prior opinion. In essence, Steplight asks for a "duplicative ruling on a previously considered issue." See Hinds County v. Wachovia Bank N.A., 708 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).The motion is denied. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 10/9/2013) (djc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT I)F NEW YORK \~SoCSDNY DOCU~1ENT , E1.ECfRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _---r--;-:-:-.; DATE Fii..ED: \() '"\ 11..6 \~ TALEETHA STEPLIGHJ, Plaintiff, 12 Civ. 113 v. OPINION NEW YORK CITY DEP~RTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant. Pro se plaintiff Tc leetha Steplight moves for reconsideration of the court's dismissal of her action against the New York City Department of Transportation. In her complaint, Steplight alleged that she had been the victim of retaliation and racial discrimination in her workplace. Steplight's discrimination claim arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, so she was !required to file at timely charge with the Equal Employment Opportun'ty Commission or an equivalent state or local agency. But her comp aint revealed that her charge with the EEOC could not have been tirpely for any of the misconduct alleged in the complaint. Accordingl~, the court dismissed her complaint. Steplight now mJves for reconsideration of the dismissal. Reconsideration of a previous order is an "extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly." In re Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc. Sec. Litg., 113 F. 1 Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D,.N.Y. 2000). Requests for reconsideration must demonstrate controllin law or factual matters-put before the court in its decision on the und rlying matter-that the movant believes the court overlooked and that mi ht reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court. ee Shrader v. CSX Transp.! Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). In Steplight's form motion for reconsideration, she provides no proper ground for recoisideration. She points to no law or fact that the court overlooked. Instead, she requests that the court order that the Department of Transportation to conduct a "real investigation" of her mistreatment. She als asserts that a proper investigation would avoid the statute of limitatio s on her claim, but she does not explain how or why this result is possi Ie under the law or the facts of her case. And the court already addr ssed the statute of limitations in its prior opinion. In essence, Steplight a ks for a "duplicative ruling on a previously considered issue." See Hinds County v. Wachovia Bank N.A., 708 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y.! 2010). ! The motion is dehied. So ordered. Dated: New York, New Oct,Q~r-1t~~ d'~ Thomas P. Griesa United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
