McCray v. Anderson
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-02247
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In McCray v. Anderson, Judge Briccetti denied reconsideration but ordered the answer re-served and set a reply deadline.
Cerious McCray and Adrian H. Anderson; the order required Anderson to re-serve the answer and supporting documents and set deadlines for McCray’s reply.
What happened
In McCray v. Anderson, Cerious McCray, who was representing himself, asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of his requests for a default judgment and a hearing.
McCray argued that he had not received the respondent’s answer, that the proof of service was fraudulent, and that the respondent had acted in bad faith regarding his mail. The court found no credible support for the arguments and noted that McCray had raised new issues that were not proper on reconsideration.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied the reconsideration motion but ordered the respondent to serve the answer and supporting documents again by July 21, 2020. McCray’s reply, if any, was due by August 30, 2020; the petition remained referred to a magistrate judge, and the court denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- McCray v. Anderson · No. 7:20-cv-02247
- Vincent Briccetti
- July 14, 2020
Background
Cerious McCray, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, moved for reconsideration of the court’s June 22, 2020 order. That earlier order had denied his motions for default judgment and for a hearing on the default-judgment request. The case remained referred to a magistrate judge for consideration of McCray’s pending petition.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that reconsideration is limited to situations involving a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent serious injustice. It also stated that reconsideration is not a vehicle for repeating arguments or presenting new facts, issues, or arguments that could have been raised earlier.
The court concluded that it had not overlooked facts or legal authority that could have changed its earlier conclusions. It found no credible allegations or evidence supporting McCray’s assertions that he was entitled to default judgment because the respondent had not served an answer, had filed a fraudulent proof of service, or had conspired in bad faith to deprive him of mail. The court also determined that McCray’s submission improperly raised new issues and arguments.
Ruling and effect
The court denied the motion for reconsideration. Because McCray said he had never received the respondent’s answer and supporting documents, the court ordered the respondent to serve those materials again by July 21, 2020, and to file proof of service. Any reply by McCray was to be filed and served by August 30, 2020.
The court stated that the case remained referred to the magistrate judge for consideration of McCray’s petition. It certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was instructed to terminate the reconsideration motions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.