Veras v. Jacobson
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:18-cv-06724
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Veras v. Jacobson, Judge Karas denied Veras’s reconsideration motion because it repeated rejected arguments and identified no overlooked law or facts.
Franklin Veras’s motion for reconsideration was denied, leaving the court’s earlier dismissal ruling in place. Dr. A. Jacobson and Dr. T. Udeshi were affected because the earlier ruling remained unchanged.
What happened
In Veras v. Jacobson, Franklin Veras, representing himself, sued Dr. A. Jacobson and Dr. T. Udeshi under a federal civil-rights law, alleging they were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. He also asserted state-law negligence and medical-malpractice claims.
The court had previously granted in part and denied in part the doctors’ request to dismiss. Veras asked the court to reconsider that ruling, but he did not identify a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error. The court said he was repeating arguments it had already considered and rejected.
Judge Karas denied Veras’s motion for reconsideration. The earlier ruling therefore remained in place, including the dismissal of claims against the doctors with prejudice except for Veras’s claim against Jacobson concerning the July 8, 2016 procedure.
The detailed version
- Veras v. Jacobson · No. 7:18-cv-06724
- Kenneth Karas
- Nov. 13, 2020
Background
Franklin Veras, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dr. A. Jacobson and Dr. T. Udeshi. He alleged that they were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Veras also asserted supplemental state-law claims, including negligence and medical malpractice.
The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. In an earlier opinion and order dated September 23, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part that motion. The court dismissed the claims against Jacobson and Udeshi with prejudice, except for Veras’s claims against Jacobson concerning the procedure on July 8, 2016.
Motion for Reconsideration
Veras moved for reconsideration of the earlier ruling. The court explained that reconsideration is available only under a strict standard. A party generally must identify an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. Reconsideration is not a chance to repeat arguments already presented, submit new material that could have been presented earlier, or relitigate issues the court already decided.
The court found that Veras identified none of those grounds. Instead, it concluded that he repeated arguments the court had expressly considered and rejected and did not identify any controlling law, fact, or issue that the court had overlooked.
Ruling
Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied Veras’s Motion for Reconsideration. The opinion did not alter the court’s earlier grant in part and denial in part of the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.