Cordero v. The Secretary of Health and Human Services
Richard Cordero v. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, EmblemHealth, Maximus Federal Services, et al.
- Vargas
- 1:24-cv-09778
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Richard Cordero v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Judge Vargas denied Cordero’s motions seeking reconsideration, discovery, and reinstatement of dismissed defendants.
Richard Cordero’s attempts to reinstate previously dismissed defendants, obtain reconsideration, begin discovery, and stay motion practice were rejected. The order also denied fee-free appeal status for an appeal from this order.
What happened
In Richard Cordero v. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, EmblemHealth, Maximus Federal Services, et al., the court had previously ordered service on three defendants and dismissed Cordero’s claims against other federal defendants based on judicial and sovereign immunity.
Cordero, who represented himself, asked the court to consider news coverage and other federal cases as a basis to reinstate the dismissed defendants. He also sought to undo the earlier dismissal and another order, pause motion practice, and allow discovery. He had already sought reconsideration, appealed the earlier order, and asked the district court to consider the issue as a full-panel court; those requests had been denied or remained addressed by prior proceedings.
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas treated the new motions as repeated requests for reconsideration and denied them. She found them untimely, largely repetitive of arguments already rejected, and impermissible as successive reconsideration motions. She also declined to pause motion practice or allow discovery, directed the Clerk to terminate the motions, and denied special status to proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Cordero v. The Secretary of Health and Human Services · No. 1:24-cv-09778
- Vargas
- Dec. 5, 2025
Background
On January 31, 2025, the Court directed service on the Secretary of Health and Human Services, EmblemHealth, and Maximus Federal Services. It dismissed Cordero’s claims against the remaining federal defendants on judicial-immunity and sovereign-immunity grounds.
Cordero had previously moved for reconsideration of that dismissal order, but the Court denied that motion. He also appealed the dismissal order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In addition, he filed motions asking the district court to consider the issue as a full-panel court; those motions were denied on May 5, 2025.
Motions and Analysis
Cordero filed motions asking the Court to take judicial notice of news about Medicare during a government shutdown and of other federal cases in which defendants allegedly had been served and subjected to discovery and trial. He asked the Court to apply that asserted precedent here and reinstate the dismissed defendants. The motions also sought to vacate the dismissal order and the May 5 order, stay motion practice, and permit discovery to begin.
The Court construed the motions as successive motions for reconsideration. It explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and that a motion generally must be filed within 14 days after the challenged order. The Court identified the recognized grounds as an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. It also stated that reconsideration is not a way to relitigate old issues, present new theories, or obtain another hearing.
The Court found three independent problems with Cordero’s motions: they were untimely, they largely repeated arguments the Court had already considered and rejected, and Cordero was not entitled to file successive motions for reconsideration. The Court also considered his other requests, including the requests to stay motion practice and permit discovery, but declined to grant them for the reasons stated in its earlier decision.
Ruling
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas denied Cordero’s motions and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF Nos. 76 and 77. The Court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied status to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.