Dimps v. Taconic Correctional Facility
- Nelson Roman
- 7:17-cv-08806
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dimps v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Judge Román denied reconsideration without prejudice.
Shirley Dimps and the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision; the order concerns Dimps’s request to reopen her previously dismissed Title VII claims.
What happened
In Shirley Dimps v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, the court had previously dismissed Dimps’s claims that she faced a hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII, a federal workplace-discrimination law.
Dimps, who was representing herself, asked the court to reconsider that dismissal. She said the court had violated an appeals-court mandate and asked to reopen her claims, but she did not provide facts or arguments addressing the recognized reasons for reconsideration.
Judge Nelson S. Román denied the motion for reconsideration without prejudice. The court said Dimps may seek permission to file another reconsideration motion addressing those reasons.
The detailed version
- Dimps v. Taconic Correctional Facility · No. 7:17-cv-08806
- Nelson Roman
- June 2, 2025
Background
In an April 3, 2024 opinion, the court dismissed Shirley Dimps’s hostile-work-environment and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Dimps was representing herself. The current order does not reconsider the underlying claims on their merits; it addresses Dimps’s request to reconsider the earlier dismissal.
Motion for Reconsideration
Dimps moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 for reconsideration. The court explained that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy generally granted only when there is: (1) a change in controlling law; (2) new evidence; or (3) a need to correct a clear error or prevent serious unfairness.
Dimps’s motion stated that the court had violated a mandate from the Court of Appeals and asked the court to reopen her Title VII claims. The court found that she provided neither factual allegations nor arguments addressing any of the three recognized grounds for reconsideration.
Ruling
Judge Nelson S. Román denied Dimps’s motion for reconsideration without prejudice. The order states that Dimps may seek permission to file a reconsideration motion addressing the factors identified by the court. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion, mail Dimps a copy of the order, and record service on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.