Henry v. Davis

Background

Christopher A. Henry brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that C.O. Miller, C.O. Joseph Grasso, and C.O. Lorenzo Colangelo physically assaulted and injured him. Henry proceeded without a lawyer. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute after Henry repeatedly failed to appear for a deposition over approximately a year, despite court orders and warnings that continued failure to appear could result in dismissal with prejudice. The record also included earlier discovery noncompliance, prior motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute, and lesser sanctions imposed on Henry.

Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman recommended dismissing the action with prejudice. Henry did not timely object. The court granted him an extension, but he still did not file objections by the extended deadline. The court denied his later request for another two-month extension and then adopted the recommendation and terminated the case. When Henry later submitted purported objections, the court rejected them, explaining that they repeated his prior argument that he had not received sufficient notice of the deposition and that the record showed no clear error.

Motion for reconsideration

Henry moved to reconsider and reopen the case. He argued that his failure to comply had not been willful because he lacked adequate deposition notice. He also argued that a less severe sanction would have been appropriate because he could afford to pay a daily fine after receiving a $550,000 judgment in July 2018.

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally limited to a controlling legal decision or fact the court overlooked, an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. It is not a chance to repeat arguments already rejected or raise arguments that could have been made earlier.

Ruling

Judge Engelmayer denied Henry’s motion for reconsideration. The court found that Henry’s notice argument merely repeated arguments previously rejected by Judge Pitman and the court. It also found that the record showed Henry’s noncompliance was willful and that he had repeatedly received proper notice of the depositions. The court further held that Henry’s argument about his ability to pay a fine was based on a fact known to him before the defendants moved to dismiss and therefore could have been raised earlier. In addition, the court said his ability to pay a fine was only a minor factor in the dismissal; the willfulness and duration of his noncompliance and the repeated warnings were more important and independently justified dismissal on the record presented.

The court stated that the case remained closed and that Henry’s failure to file timely objections operated as a waiver of appellate review. It directed the clerk to close the reconsideration motion and mail the order to Henry at the addresses on file.