Henry v. Davis
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:11-cv-01273
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Henry v. C.O. Miller, Judge Engelmayer denied Henry’s reconsideration motion and kept the case closed.
The order affects Christopher A. Henry and leaves the case closed as to defendants C.O. Miller, C.O. Joseph Grasso, and C.O. Lorenzo Colangelo.
What happened
In Henry v. C.O. Miller, Christopher A. Henry asked the court to reconsider its November 2019 dismissal of his case against C.O. Miller, C.O. Joseph Grasso, and C.O. Lorenzo Colangelo.
The court had already rejected Henry’s third reconsideration request on August 24, 2020. Henry then submitted another reconsideration motion and a supporting letter, but the court said they repeated arguments it had already rejected.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied the motion for the reasons stated in the August 24 order and said the case remained closed. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Henry at the addresses on file.
The detailed version
- Henry v. Davis · No. 1:11-cv-01273
- Paul Engelmayer
- Sept. 22, 2020
Background
The court had dismissed the case in November 2019. On August 24, 2020, it reviewed and rejected Henry’s third request for reconsideration of that dismissal. Henry later submitted another motion for reconsideration, along with a letter supporting it. The opinion states that these submissions repeated the arguments rejected in the August 24 order.
Legal standard
The court explained that a motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to repeat arguments already rejected or to raise new arguments that could have been presented earlier.
Ruling
Because Henry repeated arguments the court had already rejected, the court denied his motion for reconsideration for the reasons given in its August 24, 2020 order. The court stated that the case remained closed. It also directed the clerk to mail the order to Henry at the addresses on file.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court denied reconsideration without deciding the underlying claims in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.