Manchanda v. Attorney Grievance Committee 1st Department

Background

Rahul Dev Manchanda moved for reconsideration of the court’s earlier order dismissing his case. The earlier order dismissed the case for failure to comply with a filing injunction in the Southern District of New York, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear the dispute—and the absence of private rights of action in five new federal executive orders that Manchanda cited as the basis for new claims.

Legal standard

The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly. It explained that a party seeking reconsideration must show one of three things: a change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.

Ruling

The court concluded that it had overlooked neither a controlling issue of law nor a crucial fact in the record. It therefore DENIED Manchanda’s motion for reconsideration.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It consequently denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The opinion does not state that the court ruled on the merits of Manchanda’s underlying claims in this order.