Henry v. Davis

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CHRISTOPHER A. HENRY,

Plaintiff, 11 Civ. 1273 (PAE) (SLC) -v- ORDER C.O. MILLER, C.O. JOSEPH GRASSO, and C.O. LORENZO COLANGELO

Defendants.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: On August 24, 2020, the Court reviewed and rejected plaintiff Christopher Henry’s third request for reconsideration of the Court’s November 2019 dismissal of this case. Dkt. 192 at 1–2. On August 26, 2020, the Court received yet another motion for reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal, dated September 16, 2020, and on September 21, 2020, Henry submitted a letter in further support. Dkts. 193–94. Each repeats the arguments rejected in the Court’s August 24, 2020 order. Id. A motion for reconsideration “is neither an occasion for repeating old arguments previously rejected nor an opportunity for making new arguments that could have been previously advanced.” Associated Press v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 395 F. Supp. 2d 17, 19 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); see also Goonan v. Fed. Reserve Bank of N.Y., No. 12 Civ. 3859 (JPO), 2013 WL 1386933, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2013) (“Simply put, courts do not tolerate such efforts to obtain a second bite at the apple.”). Because Henry reprises only “old arguments previously rejected,” the Court denies Henry’s motion for reconsideration for the reasons set out in its order dated August 24, 2020. This case remains closed. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail this order to plaintiff at the addresses on file. SO ORDERED. ____________________________ Paul A. Engelmayer United States District Judge

Dated: September 22, 2020 New York, New York