Dimps v. Taconic Correctional Facility

S.D. New York

Dimps v. Taconic Correctional Facility

DecidedJune 2, 2025

Docket7:17-cv-08806

StatusUnknown

This text of Dimps v. Taconic Correctional Facility (Dimps v. Taconic Correctional Facility) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dimps v. Taconic Correctional Facility, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: SHIRLEY DIMPS DATE FILED: __ 6/2/2025 Plaintiff, No. 17 CIV 8806 (NSR) -against- ORDER NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, Defendant.

NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge: By Opinion dated April 3, 2024, this Court dismissed pro se Plaintiff's hostile work environment and retaliation claims, as asserted in her Second Amended Complaint, which were brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (ECF No. 126.) Plaintiff now moves pursuant to Fed. Rul. Civ. Pro. 59 for reconsideration. (ECF No. 160.) For the following reason(s), the motion is DENIED. A motion for reconsideration 1s “‘an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce Judicial resources.” Jn re Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig., 399 F.Supp.2d 298, 300 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (internal citation and quotation omitted), aff'd sub nom. Furthermore, “[m]options for reconsideration are properly granted only if there is a showing of: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence or (3) a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Drapkin v. Mafco Consol. Grp., Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 678 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Here, pro se Plaintiff offers neither any factual averments nor arguments as to any of the three possible bases for the Court to grant pro se Plaintiff's motion. Pro se Plaintiff's motion merely

states that the Court “violated the MANDATE from the Court of Appeals” and requests that her hostile work environment and retaliation claims brought under Title VII be “reopened.” (Mot. p. 8.) Accordingly, pro se Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED without prejudice. If pro se Plaintiff wishes, pro se Plaintiff may seek leave of Court to file a motion for

reconsideration addressing the aforementioned factors. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed terminate the motion at ECF No. 160, to mail a copy of this Order to pro se Plaintiff at the address listed on ECF and to show service on the docket, Dated: June 2, 2025 SO ORDERED: White Plains, New York

________________________________ NELSON S. ROMÁN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: SHIRLEY DIMPS DATE FILED: __ 6/2/2025 Plaintiff, No. 17 CIV 8806 (NSR) -against- ORDER NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, Defendant.

NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge: By Opinion dated April 3, 2024, this Court dismissed pro se Plaintiff's hostile work environment and retaliation claims, as asserted in her Second Amended Complaint, which were brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (ECF No. 126.) Plaintiff now moves pursuant to Fed. Rul. Civ. Pro. 59 for reconsideration. (ECF No. 160.) For the following reason(s), the motion is DENIED. A motion for reconsideration 1s “‘an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce Judicial resources.” Jn re Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig., 399 F.Supp.2d 298, 300 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (internal citation and quotation omitted), aff'd sub nom. Furthermore, “[m]options for reconsideration are properly granted only if there is a showing of: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence or (3) a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Drapkin v. Mafco Consol. Grp., Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 678 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Here, pro se Plaintiff offers neither any factual averments nor arguments as to any of the three possible bases for the Court to grant pro se Plaintiff's motion. Pro se Plaintiff's motion merely

states that the Court “violated the MANDATE from the Court of Appeals” and requests that her hostile work environment and retaliation claims brought under Title VII be “reopened.” (Mot. p. 8.) Accordingly, pro se Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED without prejudice. If pro se Plaintiff wishes, pro se Plaintiff may seek leave of Court to file a motion for

reconsideration addressing the aforementioned factors. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed terminate the motion at ECF No. 160, to mail a copy of this Order to pro se Plaintiff at the address listed on ECF and to show service on the docket, Dated: June 2, 2025 SO ORDERED: White Plains, New York

________________________________ NELSON S. ROMÁN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dimps v. Taconic Correctional Facility, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dimps-v-taconic-correctional-facility-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack