Richardson et al v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision employees et al, No. 1:2013cv06189 - Document 9 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER re: 8 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 5 Order of Service filed by Roland Richardson. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is denied. Neither this Opinion and Order nor the Order for which Plain tiff sought reconsideration prevents Kishma Richardson and K-Sean Stuart Richey from joining this action on their own behalf. They are encouraged to contact the Pro Se Office of this Court for assistance if they wish to join this action. The Clerk is directed to close Docket No. 8 and mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to pro se Plaintiff. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 10/17/2013) (lmb)

Download PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------X : ROLAND RICHARDSON, : Plaintiff, : : -against: : PATRICK J. GRIFFIN, et al., : Defendants. : : ------------------------------------------------------------- X 10/17/13 13 Civ. 06189 (LGS) OPINION AND ORDER LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, United States District Judge: This case is now before the Court upon pro se Plaintiff s Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 8, the Motion ). For the following reasons, Plaintiff s Motion is denied. I. BACKGROUND On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, brought this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 on behalf of himself, Kishma Richardson and K-Sean Stuart Richey. Plaintiff Richardson alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional rights during his incarceration at Sullivan Correctional Facility. On September 5, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff s request to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 3). On September 10, 2013, the Court ordered service of the Complaint and summons upon Defendants. (Dkt. No. 5, the Order ). In the Order, the Court dismissed Kishma Richardson and K-Sean Stuart Richey without prejudice on the ground that a non-attorney could not appear pro se on behalf of others. On October 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion asking the Court to reconsider the Order. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The standards governing motions for amendment of findings under Rule 52(b), motions to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), and motions for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 6.3 are the same. ResQnet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., No. 01 Civ. 3578, 2008 WL 4376367, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2008); Wechsler v. Hunt Health Sys., Ltd., No. 94 Civ. 8294, 2004 WL 2210261, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2004). The standard for granting such a motion is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court. Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). A party seeking reconsideration is not supposed to treat the court s initial decision as the opening of a dialogue in which that party may then use such a motion to advance new theories or adduce new evidence in response to the court s rulings. Wechsler, 2004 WL 2210261, at *2 (quoting Polsby v. St. Martin s Press, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 690, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 596, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2000)). The motion to reconsider cannot properly advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the court. Wechsler, 2004 WL 2210261, at *2 (quoting Davidson v. Scully, 172 F. Supp. 2d 458, 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)). III. DISCUSSION Plaintiff argues that Kishma Richardson, his wife, and K-Sean Stuart Richey, his son, should not have been dismissed because Defendants actions had caused them emotional and physical harm. The basis of the Court s order to dismiss them, however, was not the absence of alleged harm. As noted in the Order, they were dismissed because the Complaint was not signed by them or their counsel. As a pro se litigant, Plaintiff, the sole signatory of the Complaint, cannot represent or otherwise appear on behalf of others. See U.S. ex rel. Mergent Servs. v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89, 92 (2d Cir. 2008) ( [A]n individual who is not licensed as an attorney may not appear on another person's behalf in the other's cause. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2d Cir. 1998) ( [B]ecause pro se 2 means to appear for one s self, a person may not appear on another person s behalf in the other s cause. ). The fact that K-Sean Stuart Richey is Plaintiff s son does not change the analysis. It is . . . a well-established general rule in this Circuit that a parent not admitted to the bar cannot bring an action pro se in federal court on behalf of his or her child. Tindall v. Poultney High Sch. Dist., 414 F.3d 281, 284 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing Cheung v. Youth Orchestra Found. of Buffalo, Inc., 906 F.2d 59, 61 (2d Cir. 1990) ( [A] non-attorney parent must be represented by counsel in bringing an action on behalf of his or her child. )). This is so because [w]here [minor children] have claims that require adjudication, they are entitled to trained legal assistance so their rights may be fully protected. Cheung, 906 F.2d at 61. In light of this rule, the emotional and physical harm that Defendants allegedly caused Kishma Richardson and K-Sean Stuart Richey cannot reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court. Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff s Motion for Reconsideration is denied. Neither this Opinion and Order nor the Order for which Plaintiff sought reconsideration prevents Kishma Richardson and K-Sean Stuart Richey from joining this action on their own behalf. They are encouraged to contact the Pro Se Office of this Court for assistance if they wish to join this action. The Clerk is directed to close Docket No. 8 and mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to pro se Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 17, 2013 New York, New York 3

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.