Ash v. City of N.Y.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:16-cv-09548
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ash v. City of N.Y., Judge Woods denied reconsideration because Ash showed no new law, evidence, or clear error.
Damon Ash, whose request to reconsider the denial of equitable tolling was denied; the order also directed the clerk to mail him a copy.
What happened
In Ash v. City of N.Y., Damon Ash asked the court to reconsider an earlier order denying his request to extend the deadline for his claims.
The court said Ash identified no change in controlling law or new evidence. It also found that he had not shown a clear error or that applying the filing deadline to claims based on incidents from May 16, 2013, and January 26, 2015, would be manifestly unjust.
Judge Woods denied Ash’s motion for reconsideration. The clerk was directed to mail Ash a copy of the order by first-class and certified mail.
The detailed version
- Ash v. City of N.Y. · No. 1:16-cv-09548
- Gregory Woods
- Mar. 3, 2020
Background
On February 26, 2020, Damon Ash submitted a letter asking the court to reconsider its earlier order denying his motion for equitable tolling. Equitable tolling is a limited rule that can extend a legal filing deadline in appropriate circumstances.
Legal standard
The court applied Local Rule 6.3. Under that rule, the party seeking reconsideration must identify matters or controlling decisions that the court overlooked. The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and should generally be granted only because of an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that Ash had not met that standard. He identified no intervening change in controlling law and no new evidence that had been unavailable when the court decided his earlier motion. The court noted that, by Ash’s own admission, all of the evidence in his latest letter had already been before the court.
The court also found that Ash had not identified an error, much less a clear error, in the earlier decision. That decision had noted Ash’s allegations that he repeatedly complained to internal affairs and the Federal Bureau of Investigation during the period when he claimed an extraordinary circumstance prevented him from pursuing his claims in federal court. The court stated that those allegations showed Ash was not incapacitated during that period. For the same reason, the court found that Ash had not shown that applying the statute of limitations to bar claims based on the May 16, 2013, and January 26, 2015, incidents would be manifestly unjust.
Disposition
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied Ash’s motion for reconsideration. The clerk was directed to mail Ash a copy of the order by first-class and certified mail.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.