Turner v. United States of America and NAPHCARE Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-00412
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Turner v. NAPHCARE: Judge Schofield denied reconsideration of a preliminary-injunction ruling and denied Turner’s medical-licensing information request.
The order affected Wilbert Kitson Andrew Turner and the defendants, including the Federal Defendants. It left the earlier denial of Turner’s preliminary-injunction motion in place and denied his separate request for medical-licensing information.
What happened
In Turner v. NAPHCARE, et al., Wilbert Kitson Andrew Turner, who represented himself, asked the court to reconsider its April 24, 2020, denial of his request for a preliminary injunction against several Federal Defendants. His submission also requested information about New York medical-licensing rules.
The court said reconsideration requires a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. Turner provided more details about his claim that he was denied medical care in retaliation for this litigation, but the court said those issues had already been considered. The earlier ruling found that changes involving Prilosec, Prevacid, and Ensure did not show a sufficiently serious medical need for emergency relief.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied Turner’s motion for reconsideration and separately denied his request for information about New York medical-licensing rules. The court also ordered the defendants to send him the order and file proof of service.
The detailed version
- Turner v. United States of America and NAPHCARE Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-00412
- Lorna Schofield
- May 13, 2020
Background
Turner, proceeding without a lawyer, mailed a March 26, 2020, letter that the court treated as a motion for a preliminary injunction against Dr. Robert Beaudouin, Warden L. N’Diaye, C.O. Grijava, and C.O. Rose, collectively identified as the Federal Defendants. The Federal Defendants opposed the application. On April 24, 2020, the court denied the preliminary-injunction motion.
Turner then submitted an April 24, 2020, letter that the court treated as a motion for reconsideration. The submission, which the court stated would be filed separately under seal, also requested information about rules concerning medical licensure in New York.
Legal standard
The court explained that reconsideration is available only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. It described the standard as strict and said reconsideration is not a way to relitigate old issues, present new theories, or obtain another hearing on the merits. The court also noted that it must read a self-represented litigant’s submissions liberally, while self-represented litigants still generally must learn and follow procedural rules.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Turner did not identify a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice requiring revision of the April 24 order. Turner gave additional details about incidents underlying his claim that he was denied appropriate medical care in retaliation for this litigation, but the court said those issues had already been considered in deciding the preliminary-injunction motion.
The prior order had found that the substitution of Prilosec and Prevacid, and the temporary discontinuance of Ensure, did not establish a “sufficiently serious” medical need warranting injunctive relief. Because reconsideration is not a vehicle for revisiting issues already addressed, the court declined to consider those arguments again. The court also denied the request for information about New York medical-licensing rules.
Disposition
The court denied Turner’s motion for reconsideration of the April 24, 2020, order. It separately denied Turner’s request for information about New York medical-licensing rules. The court ordered the defendants to email, if possible, and mail Turner a copy of the order by May 15, 2020, and to file proof of service.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.