Humbach v. Canon et al, No. 7:2013cv02512 - Document 79 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (dkt. no. 48) and subsequent submissions (dkt. nos. 53 and 54) fail to present controlling decisions or data the Court overlooked. Rather, Plaintiff recapitulates arguments previously ma de, namely, that difficulties associated with Plaintiff's incarceration (e.g., limited access to writing instruments and resources) preclude Plaintiff from appropriately prosecuting the instant case. The Court's prior ruling denying Plainti ff's motion to stay this action considered those arguments and found them to be unpersuasive. Instead, the Court finds currency in Defendants' position that countless inmates in substantially-identical circumstances routinely prosecute Sec tion 1983 cases pro se. The limitations Plaintiff may face while incarcerated are not unique, and, barring something more, the Court is not willing to stay this action. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion and will allow the matter to proceed apace. The Court will issue a decision on the pending motions to dismiss in the ordinary course. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 10/29/2014) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (mml)

Download PDF

Humbach v. Canon et al Doc. 79 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- )( MIRIAM RUMBACH, 13-CV-2512 (NSR) OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff, -againstDANIEL CANON, et al., Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------- )( NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge By letter dated July 19, 2014 (dkt. no. 48), Plaintiff Miriam Rumbach ("Plaintiff') moves for reconsideration of the Coutt's July 17, 2014 denial of Plaintiff's motion to stay this action. Plaintiff continues to seek a stay of at least one year. A. Applicable Standard Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The standard is strict. Targum v. Citrin Cooperman & Co., No. 12-cv6909, 2013 WL 6188339, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2013). Reconsideration "is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources." Allen v. Antal, No. 12-cv-8024, 2014 WL 2526913, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2014). Such motions "will generally be denied unless the moving patty can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked and that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." In re Optimal US. Litig., 886 F. Supp. 2d 298, 311-12 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); accord Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 39, 52 (2d r;=====c=====·--USDC SD:\Y DOClJi\IEJ'\"f ELECTRONICALLY FILLD DOC#: \ , DATE FILED: ' 0 .) "\ \:J.>01 l! j Copies i0raxoa- lo \d-'\ \;>-o\<.\ Chambers ofNelson.s. Roman, U.S.D.J. ' Dockets.Justia.com Cir. 2012). Alternatively, a court may grant a motion for reconsideration to "correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Optimal, 886 F. Supp. 2d at 312. "Local Rule 6.3 is to be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the court." Sys. Mgmt. Arts Inc. v. Avesta Techs, Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 509, 521 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). "New arguments which could have been raised previously may not be raised on a motion for reconsideration." Thypin Steel Co. v. Certain Bills ofLading, No. 96-cv-2166, 1999 WL 108728, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 1999). B. Analysis Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (dkt. no. 48) and subsequent submissions (dkt. nos. 53 and 54) fail to present controlling decisions or data the Court overlooked. Rather, Plaintiff recapitulates arguments previously made, namely, that difficulties associated with Plaintiffs incarceration (e.g., limited access to writing instruments and resources) preclude Plaintiff from appropriately prosecuting the instant case. The Court's prior ruling denying Plaintiffs motion to stay this action considered those arguments and found them to be unpersuasive. Instead, the Coutt finds currency in Defendants' position that countless inmates in substantially-identical circumstances routinely prosecute Section 1983 cases prose. The limitations Plaintiff may face while incarcerated are not unique, and, barring something more, the Coutt is not willing to stay this action. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion and will allow the matter to proceed apace. The Court will issue a decision on the pending motions to dismiss in the ordinary course. Dated: October 29, 2014 White Plains, New York 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.