Manchanda v. Attorney Grievance Committee 1st Department

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided July 30, 2025·No. 1:25-cv-03935·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

RAHUL DEV MANCHANDA, Plaintiff, 25-CV-3935 (JPO) -v- ORDER ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE 1ST DEP’T, et al., Defendants.

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: Plaintiff Rahul Dev Manchanda moves for reconsideration of this Court’s Order dismissing his case for failing to abide by a filing injunction in this District, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and an absence of private rights of action in the five new federal executive orders he cites as bases for his new claims. (ECF No. 40.) “A motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” Drapkin v. Mafco Consol. Grp., Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 678, 695 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (citation and quotations omitted). To prevail, the movant must demonstrate either (i) an intervening change in controlling law; (ii) the availability of new evidence; or (iii) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc., 293 F.R.D. 578, 580–81 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citation omitted); see also Cioce v. County of Westchester, 128 Fed. App’x 181, 185 (2d Cir. 2005) (“Generally, motions for reconsideration are not granted unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked—matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.”). Having reviewed the record and Plaintiff’s letter motion, the Court concludes that it overlooked neither a controlling issue of law nor a crucial fact in the record. Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider is therefore DENIED. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2025 New York, New York

| ] J. PAUL OETKEN United States District Judge

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

Manchanda v. Attorney Grievance Committee 1st Department, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Manchanda v. Attorney Grievance Committee 1st Department (Manchanda v. Attorney Grievance Committee 1st Department) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Drapkin v. Mafco Consolidated Group, Inc.
818 F. Supp. 2d 678 (S.D. New York, 2011)
Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc.
293 F.R.D. 578 (S.D. New York, 2013)