Cordero v. The Secretary of Health and Human Services
- Vargas
- 1:24-cv-09778
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Cordero v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, District Judge Vargas denied reconsideration because Cordero showed no valid grounds.
Richard Cordero, whose motion for reconsideration was denied, and the defendants affected by the court’s January 31, 2025 order.
What happened
In Cordero v. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Richard Cordero asked the court to reconsider its January 31, 2025 order. That order directed service on the Secretary, EmblemHealth, and Maximus Federal Services and dismissed Cordero’s claims against the remaining federal defendants.
Cordero argued that the court denied him access to the judicial process by dismissing defendants before service and that judicial immunity was unconstitutional. The court rejected those arguments, explaining that it could dismiss improper portions of a complaint filed without the filing fee at any time and that judges and administrative law judges generally have immunity from lawsuits seeking money damages for their judicial actions.
District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas ruled that Cordero had identified no change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or injustice. The court denied the motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion from the docket.
The detailed version
- Cordero v. The Secretary of Health and Human Services · No. 1:24-cv-09778
- Vargas
- Mar. 13, 2025
Background
On January 31, 2025, the court issued an Order of Service directing service on the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, EmblemHealth, and Maximus Federal Services. The order also dismissed Richard Cordero’s claims against the remaining federal defendants. On February 14, 2025, Cordero moved for reconsideration.
Arguments and legal standard
The court stated that reconsideration is available only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent manifest injustice. It also explained that reconsideration is not a way to relitigate old issues, present new theories, or obtain another hearing on the merits.
Cordero argued that dismissing defendants before they were served deprived him of access to the judicial process. The court explained that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), it must dismiss portions of a complaint filed without the filing fee when they are frivolous, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court said this dismissal may occur at any time, including before service.
Cordero also argued that judicial immunity was unconstitutional. The court stated that judges generally have absolute immunity from lawsuits seeking money damages for judicial actions and that this protection extends to administrative law judges because they perform similar functions. The court found that Cordero had not identified a clear error in its interpretation of judicial immunity or provided supporting case law.
Ruling
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas held that Cordero had not met the strict standard for reconsideration. The court denied Cordero’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 16. The opinion does not state that the court reconsidered the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.