Corley v. Vance
- Katherine Failla
- 1:15-cv-01800
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Corley v. Vance, Judge Failla denied Royce Corley’s motion to reconsider an earlier denial of his omnibus pretrial motion.
Royce Corley’s request for reconsideration was denied; the defendants’ earlier opposition arguments remained the basis for the court’s prior ruling.
What happened
In Corley v. Vance, Royce Corley asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of his omnibus pretrial motion.
The court explained that reconsideration requires identifying controlling decisions or information the court overlooked that could change its conclusion. It found that Corley had mostly repeated arguments he had already made and had not met that standard.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied the motion for reconsideration and directed the clerk to terminate the motion from the docket.
The detailed version
- Corley v. Vance · No. 1:15-cv-01800
- Katherine Failla
- Dec. 17, 2019
Background
The court considered Royce Corley’s motion asking it to reconsider its earlier denial of his “Omnibus Pretrial Motion.” The earlier motion had been denied on September 17, 2019, largely for the reasons given by the defendants in their opposition letter.
Legal standard
The court stated that reconsideration is available only under a strict standard. The moving party must identify controlling decisions or information that the court overlooked and that could reasonably be expected to change the result. The court also identified limited grounds such as a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or preventing serious unfairness. A reconsideration motion cannot simply repeat arguments that the court has already considered.
Ruling
The court found that Corley had not identified controlling decisions or information that it had overlooked. Instead, it found that he had largely repeated his earlier arguments. The court therefore concluded that he had not met his burden and denied the motion for reconsideration. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket number 342.
Effect of the order
The order addressed only Corley’s request for reconsideration. The opinion does not explain the underlying claims or provide additional details about the earlier omnibus pretrial motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.