Franza v. Stanford
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:16-cv-07635
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Franza v. Stanford: Judge Karas denied Franza’s motion to reconsider dismissal of his parole-procedure claims.
The ruling directly affected pro se plaintiff Dominic M. Franza by leaving in place the earlier dismissal with prejudice of his claims against Tina M. Stanford, Edward M. Sharkey, Otis Cruze, Sally Velasquez-Thompson, Gail Hallerdin, and Walter William Smith, Jr.
What happened
In Franza v. Stanford, Dominic M. Franza, representing himself, sued New York State Board of Parole officials under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that the officials violated his constitutional rights when deciding his parole eligibility and reviewing his appeal under a decision-making procedure he said was invalidly adopted.
The court had dismissed Franza’s claims with prejudice in 2019. Franza later asked the court to reconsider that decision, but the court found that he had not identified a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error, and that he was repeating arguments the court had already rejected.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied the motion for reconsideration. The clerk was directed to mail Franza a copy of the order and terminate the pending motion.
The detailed version
- Franza v. Stanford · No. 7:16-cv-07635
- Kenneth Karas
- June 28, 2021
Background
Dominic M. Franza, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Tina M. Stanford, Edward M. Sharkey, Otis Cruze, Sally Velasquez-Thompson, Gail Hallerdin, and Walter William Smith, Jr. The opinion identifies these defendants as officials and commissioners of the New York State Board of Parole. Franza alleged that they violated his rights under the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments when determining his parole eligibility and evaluating his appeal under 9 NYCRR § 8002.3, which he claimed was invalidly formulated and adopted.
The defendants moved to dismiss. On February 5, 2019, the court granted that motion and dismissed Franza’s claims with prejudice. Franza then filed the motion addressed in this order, seeking reconsideration of the earlier decision. His supporting memorandum referred to a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), while the court discussed the standards governing reconsideration under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3.
Reconsideration Standard
The court explained that reconsideration is narrowly available and is not a way to repeat arguments already decided or submit material that could have been presented earlier. A party seeking reconsideration must identify an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. The party must also show that the court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters presented on the earlier motion and that considering them could reasonably have changed the result.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Franza identified none of those grounds. It concluded that he repeated arguments the court had expressly considered and rejected in the earlier opinion and order. The court also found that he pointed to no issue, case law, or fact that it had overlooked. Because Franza was attempting to relitigate an issue already decided, the court denied reconsideration.
Disposition
The Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied. The clerk was directed to mail Franza a copy of the order at the address listed on the docket and terminate the pending motion, docket number 103. This order itself addressed whether the earlier dismissal should be reconsidered; it did not revisit the underlying parole claims on their merits.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.