Fecteau v. The City of Mount Vernon
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:23-cv-09173
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Fecteau v. Mount Vernon, Judge McCarthy denied reconsideration because Fecteau repeated arguments and offered no valid basis to change earlier rulings.
Matthew J. Fecteau’s request to revisit earlier procedural rulings was denied; the City Defendants and Charlene Humphreys were not required to obtain reconsideration of those rulings.
What happened
In Fecteau v. The City of Mount Vernon, Matthew J. Fecteau, representing himself, asked the court to reconsider its March 10, 2025 order in his civil-rights lawsuit. The motion concerned earlier rulings about an insurance policy, a filing by nonparty Safety National, a required conference, judicial notice, and statements directed at Safety National’s lawyers or employees.
The court said Fecteau repeated arguments from his earlier motions instead of identifying overlooked facts or controlling legal decisions. It also said some issues were no longer live because the City Defendants had produced the insurance policy and the motion to add Safety National had been denied. The court rejected Fecteau’s new arguments and legal authorities because reconsideration is not a chance to raise new issues or simply disagree with an earlier ruling.
Judge Judith C. McCarthy denied Fecteau’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion. The order did not reconsider the earlier rulings.
The detailed version
- Fecteau v. The City of Mount Vernon · No. 7:23-cv-09173
- Kenneth Karas
- Apr. 22, 2025
Background
Matthew J. Fecteau, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Mount Vernon, several named City officials and employees, and Charlene Humphreys. He moved for reconsideration of the court’s March 10, 2025 Omnibus Order. The City Defendants opposed the motion.
Legal standard
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3. A motion for reconsideration asks the court to revisit an earlier ruling, but it is an extraordinary remedy used sparingly. The moving party must identify controlling decisions or factual matters that the court overlooked and that could reasonably change the result. The motion cannot be used to repeat earlier arguments, introduce new facts or legal theories, or substitute for an appeal.
Court’s reasoning
Fecteau argued that the court had erred in denying his requests for the insurance policy and Safety National’s Rule 7.1 statement. The court found that he repeated the arguments made in his original motions. It also found that those issues were moot because the City Defendants had produced the insurance policy and Judge Kenneth M. Karas had denied Fecteau’s motion to join Safety National as a party.
Fecteau also repeated arguments about the required Rule 26(f) conference and maintained that he did not view or intend his statements to Safety National’s counsel as threats. The court concluded that these arguments did not identify a proper basis for reconsideration. It further rejected Fecteau’s claim that the Omnibus Order contained clear legal error and his new theory that his statements were not legally actionable threats. The court said the new theory and cited authorities were not relevant enough to alter the earlier conclusion and were not proper subjects for a reconsideration motion.
Disposition
Judge Judith C. McCarthy denied Fecteau’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was respectfully requested to terminate the pending motion, docketed as No. 176.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.