Lurch, Jr. v. NYCHHC
- Andrew Carter
- 1:21-cv-01567
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Robert Lurch v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation: Judge Carter denied reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of Lurch’s confinement claim.
The ruling directly affects Robert D. Lurch, Jr.’s request for reconsideration. The named defendants are New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, The City of New York, Tara Asher, Pearline Thompson, George Gaines, Ovunduh Okene, Ida Brown, Min Kang, Christopher Tatem, Alexander Aronov, and AV Trope.
What happened
In Robert D. Lurch, Jr. v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Robert Lurch asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of his request to reconsider the dismissal of his confinement claim.
Lurch argued that the court had overlooked allegations and evidence that defendants intentionally created unsafe conditions at Rikers Island. He also argued that his symptoms—including muscle aches, extreme fatigue, hot sweats, chills, and shaking—were severe enough to support his claim.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied the motion for reconsideration. The court found that the symptoms did not meet the required constitutional standard and that Lurch had not shown defendants intentionally created unsafe conditions; it also found that the facility worked to examine and treat his symptoms.
The detailed version
- Lurch, Jr. v. NYCHHC · No. 1:21-cv-01567
- Andrew Carter
- Sept. 23, 2024
Background
Robert D. Lurch, proceeding without a lawyer, moved for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) of the court’s September 29, 2023 order. That earlier order had denied his previous reconsideration motion, which sought to revisit the court’s January 17, 2023 order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The current motion argued that the court had erred in denying the earlier reconsideration motion.
Legal standard
The court explained that reconsideration generally requires an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent serious injustice. Under the court’s local rule, the moving party must identify controlling law or facts already presented that the court overlooked and that could reasonably have changed its decision. Reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate old issues, present new theories, or obtain another hearing on the merits.
Discussion
The court concluded that Lurch had not identified facts or law warranting reversal of the September 29, 2023 order. Regarding the objective part of his confinement claim, the court had previously found that flu-like symptoms—including headaches, a sore throat, muscle aches, extreme fatigue, hot sweats, chills, and shaking—were insufficient to show conditions violating contemporary standards of decency.
Regarding the subjective part of the claim, the court found that Lurch had not presented evidence that the defendants intentionally created unsafe conditions at Rikers Island. The court rejected his argument that the defendants had intentionally created a flu epidemic and found that the facility worked to examine and treat his symptoms. The court also stated that Lurch had not identified new facts or applicable law that it had overlooked.
Disposition
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied Lurch’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 47.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.