McNaughton v. de Blasio
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-06991
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In McNaughton v. de Blasio, Judge Furman denied McNaughton’s reconsideration motion because it presented no valid grounds.
Neil McNaughton’s motion for reconsideration was denied; the defendants named in the case were not granted any new relief by this order.
What happened
In McNaughton v. de Blasio, the court had previously dismissed Neil McNaughton’s complaint for failing to state a claim for relief and as frivolous. The court also declined to decide any state-law claims.
McNaughton asked the court to reconsider that earlier order. The opinion says he presented no valid grounds for reconsideration.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the motion and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion from the docket.
The detailed version
- McNaughton v. de Blasio · No. 1:20-cv-06991
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 4, 2020
Background
On October 8, 2020, the court issued an earlier order dismissing Neil McNaughton’s complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and as frivolous. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning it declined to decide, over any state-law claims McNaughton might be asserting.
Motion for Reconsideration
On November 2, 2020, McNaughton moved for reconsideration of the earlier order. The court explained that reconsideration is generally not available to relitigate old issues, present new theories, obtain another hearing on the merits, or take a second opportunity to argue the case. It stated that McNaughton presented no valid grounds for reconsideration.
Ruling
The court denied McNaughton’s motion for reconsideration. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate docket entry 21, the motion for reconsideration. This order addressed the request to reconsider the earlier dismissal rather than deciding the underlying claims anew.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.