Davidson v. Scully

• Decision Date: 05 November 2001
• Docket Number: No. 81 CIV 0390 PKL.,No. 83 CIV 2405 PKL.,81 CIV 0390 PKL.,83 CIV 2405 PKL.
• Citation: 172 F.Supp.2d 458
• Parties: Ronald DAVIDSON, Plaintiff, v. Charles SCULLY, et al., Defendant. Ronald Davidson, Plaintiff, v. Thomas Coughlin, III, et al., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

172 F.Supp.2d 458

Ronald DAVIDSON, Plaintiff, v. Charles SCULLY, et al., Defendant.

Ronald Davidson, Plaintiff, v. Thomas Coughlin, III, et al., Defendant.

No. 81 CIV 0390 PKL.

No. 83 CIV 2405 PKL.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

November 5, 2001.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Ronald Davidson, Elmira, NY, pro se.

Michael B. Siller, Assistant Attorney General, State of New York, New York City, for the Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

LEISURE, District Judge.

Pursuant to Local Rule 6.3 and Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e), plaintiff, appearing pro se,¹ moves for reconsideration of this Court's judgment granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing these actions with prejudice, for the reasons set forth in this Court's Opinion and Order, dated August 22, 2001. See Davidson v. Scully, 155 F.Supp.2d 77, 90 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). For the reasons stated below, plaintiff's motion is hereby denied.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

Plaintiff's actions allege a continuous and ongoing failure by defendants to provide him with adequate medical care for four distinct medical conditions. Plaintiff alleges that defendants have: 1) failed to treat his foot problems by failing to provide him with access to a podiatrist and orthopedic footwear; 2) refused to treat his allergies by denying him allergy shots, denying him access to an allergist, ceasing to provide his allergy medication, and denying him housing in a smoke-free environment; 3) failed to treat his tinnitus by denying him ear plugs, specific medications, a masking device, participation in a sleep study, and housing in quieter sections of the correctional facilities; and 4) denied him treatment of his vision problems by denying him, at various times, contact lenses, the use of eye lubricants, access to monitoring of his contact lens use, and correctly ground lenses for his eyeglasses.

Plaintiff originally brought these actions pro se, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in the early 1980s, alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical treatment during his incarceration at Green Haven. Plaintiff amended his 81 Civ. 0390 complaint in 1990 to add Thomas Coughlin, the DOCS Commissioner at the time, as a defendant. After retaining pro bono counsel in 1996, plaintiff filed a Supplemental Amended Complaint to update his claims to include events that took place after his transfer to Auburn Correctional Facility. In Davidson v. Scully, 914 F.Supp. 1011, 1015 (S.D.N.Y.1996), the Court denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction regarding the claims underlying these actions, holding that plaintiff could not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the seriousness of his medical concerns. In May 2001, the Court granted in part plaintiff's motion for leave to submit additional evidence in further opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment, see Davidson v. Scully, 148 F.Supp.2d 249 (S.D.N.Y.2001) [hereinafter, "Davidson II"], and plaintiff submitted evidence regarding his medical treatment since his incarceration at Elmira Correctional Facility. On August 2, 2001, the Court denied plaintiff's request for permission to submit more supplemental evidence. On August 22, 2001 the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff's claims with prejudice. See Davidson v. Scully, 155 F.Supp.2d 77, 90 (S.D.N.Y.2001) [hereinafter, "Davidson III"]. Pursuant to Local Rule 6.3 and Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e), plaintiff now moves for reconsideration. Plaintiff's motion is denied in its entirety.

B. The Summary Judgment Decision

In this Court's August 22, 2001 Opinion & Order, the Court meticulously parsed through a lengthy and thorough record to determine the summary judgment motion pursuant to the standards of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). See Davidson III, 155 F.Supp.2d at 81-82. The Court based its legal analysis upon the standard for proving an Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate medical care. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); see also Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698, 702 (2d Cir.1998) (prisoner sufficiently alleged existence of serious medical condition and deliberate indifference by doctors). To prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate medical care, a prisoner must prove "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Chance, 143 F.3d at 702. To satisfy this standard the prisoner must satisfy both a subjective and an objective prong. See id. The Court ruled that plaintiff's tinnitus, allergy, and optical problems were not sufficiently serious as a matter of law to merit constitutional scrutiny, and even if these maladies were sufficiently serious, defendants were not deliberately indifferent to those conditions. See Davidson III, 155 F.Supp.2d at 84, 86, 88. The Court assumed for purposes of the motion that plaintiff's podiatric condition could constitute a "serious medical need," but found even if plaintiff's podiatric condition is a serious medical need, "a reasonable jury could not find that defendants were deliberately indifferent to that need." Davidson III, 155 F.Supp.2d at 83. Therefore, the Court granted defendants' summary judgment motion and dismissed plaintiff's claims with prejudice. See id. at 90.

II. Reconsideration

A. Standard

A motion for 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. See Copeland v. Rosen, 196 F.R.D. 20, 21 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (Leisure, J.) (internal quotes omitted). A motion for reconsideration may not be used to advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the Court, nor may it be used as a vehicle for relitigating issues already decided by the Court. See 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." Polsby v. St. Martin's Press, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 690, 2000 WL 98057, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan 18, 2000) (Mukasey, J.). Thus, a motion for reconsideration "is not a substitute for appeal and `may be granted only where the Court has overlooked matters or controlling decisions which might have materially influenced the earlier decision.'" Morales v. Quintiles Transnational Corp., 25 F.Supp.2d 369, 372 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (citations omitted).

In determining whether a motion for reconsideration should be granted, Local Civil Rule 6.3 "should be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the Court." Dellefave v. Access Temps., Inc., No. 99 Civ. 6098, 2001 WL 286771, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.22, 2001). Whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration or reargument is in the "sound discretion of a district court judge and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion." Bennett v. Watson Wyatt & Co., 156 F.Supp.2d 270, 271-72 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting McCarthy v. Manson, 714 F.2d 234, 237 (2d Cir.1983)).

B. Discussion

It should be noted at the outset that in moving for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 6.3 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), plaintiff has failed to comply with the strict filing rules of Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a) and Local Civil Rule 6.1. Plaintiff's motion, though dated and filed with the clerk on September 6, 2001 (within 10 days from the August 24, 2001 entry of judgment), was not post-marked to defendants until September 12, 2001. See Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Summary Judgment [hereinafter "Defs" Mem.] at 1. "To be timely under Civil Rule 59(e), a motion must be filed within 10 days after entry of the judgment, computed in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), with intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays excluded. This time limitation is uncompromisable, for Civil Rule 6(b) provides, in pertinent part, that the district court `may not extend the time for taking any action under Rules 50(b) and (c)(2), 52(b), 59(b), (d) and (e).'" Lichtenberg v. Besicorp Group, 204 F.3d 397, 401 (2d Cir.2000).

Thus the Court need not consider plaintiff's motion in its entirety as it is technically procedurally barred for failure to timely serve the defendants. However, because plaintiff is now representing himself pro se the Court will be more liberal in its discretion regarding procedural errors. A pro se party's supporting papers are to be construed liberally and held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (per curiam); see Soto v. Walker, 44 F.3d 169, 173 (2d Cir.1995).

Nonetheless, it is ultimately important for plaintiff to understand the importance of following specific rules set out in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. "Although pro se litigants should be afforded latitude, they generally are required to inform themselves regarding procedural rules and to comply with them." LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92 (2d Cir.1995) (internal quotes omitted). Moreover, as the Supreme Court instructs, "[w]hile we have insisted that the pleadings prepared by prisoners who do not have access to counsel be liberally construed, and have held that some procedural rules must give way because of the unique circumstances of incarceration, we have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel." McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993).

However, because of plaintiff's pro se status and the fact that plaintiff did file the notice of motion with...