Etuk v. Bronxworks

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : AKANIYENE ETUK, : : Plaintiff, : : -v- : 24 Civ. 4953 (JPC) : : ORDER BRONXWORKS, et al., : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge: In its Opinion and Order on March 31, 2026, the Court directed Plaintiff Akaniyene Etuk to show cause within twenty-one days why his federal claims against Defendants BronxWorks and Montefiore Medical Center (“Montefiore”) should not be dismissed without prejudice but with leave to amend. Etuk v. Bronxworks, No. 24 Civ. 4953 (JPC) (SLC), 2026 WL 878693, at *9-10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2026). After Plaintiff failed to respond by that deadline, on April 23, 2026, the Court dismissed his “Section 1983 and ADA claims against BronxWorks and Montefiore without prejudice and with leave to amend for the reasons stated in its Opinion and Order.” Dkt. 84 at 1 (emphasis added). On May 4, 2026, Plaintiff filed his Fourth Amended Complaint, Dkt. 85 (“FAC”), along with an untimely response to the order to show cause, Dkt. 86. Two days later, on May 6, 2026, he filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Local Civil Rule 6.3 asserting that he did not respond to the order to show cause on time because he did not receive it in the mail until May 4, 2026, even though the Court issued the Opinion and Order on March 31, 2026, see Dkt. 83, and the docket reflects that it was mailed to Plaintiff on April 1, 2026, see Mailing Receipt, Apr. 1, 2026. Dkt. 87. In his motion, Plaintiff asked the Court to vacate the dismissal of his federal claims against BronxWorks and Montefiore or to confirm that the Court’s leave to amend permits the claims that Plaintiff asserts in the Fourth Amended Complaint. Id. at 5-6. “Motions for reconsideration are ‘addressed to the sound discretion of the district court and are generally granted only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.’” Calltrol Corp. v.

Loxysoft AB, No. 18 Civ. 9026 (NSR), 2026 WL 1243330, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2026) (quoting Mendell ex rel. Viacom, Inc. v. Gollust, 909 F.2d 724, 731 (2d Cir. 1990)). They thus “will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked.” Davidson v. Scully, 172 F. Supp. 2d 458, 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). Motions for reconsideration “may not be used to advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the Court, nor may [they] be used as a vehicle for relitigating issues already decided by the Court.” Id. (citing Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)). The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, as he already has secured the relief he seeks in that motion. In its Order dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against BronxWorks and

Montefiore, the Court made clear that the dismissal was without prejudice and with leave to amend. Dkt. 84 at 1. That leave to amend allowed Plaintiff to plead claims against BronxWorks and Montefiore in an amended complaint and allege, to the extent relevant to a cause of action, that those Defendants are state actors. Plaintiff has attempted to do so in the Fourth Amended Complaint. See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 47, 61. To be sure, the Court’s ruling today no way reflects any determination as to the legal viability of those allegations. In light of the need to deliver this Order by mail to BronxWorks, which has not yet appeared, the Court extends Defendants’ deadline to respond to the Fourth Amended Complaint to May 27, 2026. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to: (1) mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff's address on the docket; (2) mail copies of this Order and the Fourth Amended Complaint to BronxWorks at 60 East Tremont Avenue, Bronx, New York, 10453; and (3) close Docket Number 87. SO ORDERED. Dated: May 11, 2026 —Vhea Leaf 72 New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge