Free Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv-00720-JCH

Document 65

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT WILLIAM CONNELLY v. DAVID COSGROVE, et al. : : : : :

PRISONER CASE NO. 3:00-cv-720 (JCH) SEPTEMBER 14, 2005

RULING RE DEFENDANT SELIG'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [DKT. NO. 50] Defendant Selig asks the court to reconsider the denial of his motion for partial final judgment. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied. The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is strict. See Schrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Such a motion generally will be denied unless the "moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked­matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Id. The function of a motion for reconsideration thus is to present the court with an opportunity to correct "manifest errors of law or fact or to consider newly discovered evidence . . . ." LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 822 F. Supp. 870, 876-77 (D. Conn. 1993) (quoting Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987)), aff'd, 33 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 1994). Defendant Selig contends that the court erred in concluding that no danger of injustice or undue hardship exists due to the delay in the entry of partial final judgment as to him. The court's conclusion was based on the fact that defendant Selig did not provide any explanation as to how he had been or would be prejudiced or harmed if judgment were not entered until all claims in the case were adjudicated. (See Dkt. No. 49.) In the motion for reconsideration, defendant Selig explains various ways in which -1-

Case 3:00-cv-00720-JCH

Document 65

Filed 09/16/2005

Page 2 of 2

he has been prejudiced due to the fact that no final judgment has entered in his favor in this action. This information was not in the original motion for separate judgment. Defendant Selig also contends that the court overlooked the fact that the plaintiff brought a prior action against him in 1998 raising similar allegations. Judge Chatigny granted defendant Selig's motion for summary judgment in that case. Defendant Selig did not include this information in the prior motion for judgment. Furthermore, whether or not defendant Selig prevailed in a prior lawsuit filed by the plaintiff does not constitute evidence that defendant Selig is being harmed due to the lack of a final judgment as to the claims against him in this lawsuit. Thus, defendant Selig has not identified any factual information that was included in the prior motion or memorandum that was overlooked by the court in ruling on the motion for judgment. The Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. No. 50] is DENIED. SO ORDERED. Dated this 14th day of September 2005, at Bridgeport, Connecticut.

/s/ Janet C. Hall Janet C. Hall United States District Judge

-2-