Brown v. New York City Police Department

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NOEL L. BROWN,

Plaintiff,

18-CV-3287 (JPO)

-v-

ORDER

CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,

Defendants.

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge:

Noel L. Brown, proceeding pro se, brought this action asserting various claims arising

out of his arrest and confinement. (Dkt. No. 2.) Brown later filed an amended complaint (Dkt.

No. 6), and Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim

(Dkt. No. 42). On April 9, 2020, the Court granted Defendants’ motion but gave Brown

permission to amend his complaint to correct the deficiencies that the Court identified in its

Opinion and Order. (Dkt. No. 66.) Brown subsequently filed a second amended complaint.

(Dkt. No. 67.) Defendants then moved to dismiss Brown’s second amended complaint for

failure to state a claim (Dkt. No. 70), and on March 31, 2021, the Court granted Defendants’

motion and closed the case (Dkt. No. 81).

On October 13, 2021, Brown moved to reopen the case and reinstate his second amended

complaint. (Dkt. No. 85.) Brown, who is currently incarcerated in Pennsylvania, alleges that the

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections requires incoming legal mail to be marked with an

Attorney Control Number (“ACN”). Brown asserts that “the District Court Pro Se, Office or

Clerk . . . failed to meet Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b) Service (1) & (2)” because he did not receive certain

legal mail relating to Defendants’ motion to dismiss his second amended complaint since it

lacked an ACN. (Dkt. No. 86 at 1.)

Brown moves under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule

permits a Court to “relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for certain

enumerated reasons, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)–(5), or for “any other reason that justifies relief,”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6).

Brown’s motion is without merit. Brown fails to offer any reason why the Court erred in

its March 31, 2021 Opinion and Order dismissing his second amended complaint for failing to

state a claim. See Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995) (explaining that

“reconsideration will generally be denied 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”). It is true that Brown previously notified

the Court that he did not receive service of Defendants’ motion to dismiss his second amended

complaint. (Dkt. No. 72.) Before deciding Defendants’ motion, however, the Court ordered

Defendants to mail a second copy of their motion papers to Brown and extended Brown’s time to

file his opposition. (Dkt. No. 77.) Brown subsequently filed his opposition on October 5, 2020,

in which he acknowledged receipt of Defendants’ motion papers (Dkt. No. 79 at 4), and the

Court thoroughly considered Brown’s submission before issuing its March 31, 2021 Opinion and

Order (Dkt. No. 81 at 2 n.1). The Court therefore denies Brown’s motion to reopen this case.

* * *

For the foregoing reasons, Brown’s motion to reopen is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is

directed to close the motion at Docket Number 86.

The Clerk of Court is also directed to mail a copy of this order, the Court’s March 31,

2021 Opinion and Order at Docket Number 81, and the Clerk’s Judgment at Docket Number 82

to the Plaintiff. The Clerk of Court is directed to contact the Pennsylvania Department of

Corrections and obtain an Attorney Control Number to put on the envelope addressed to the

Plaintiff.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2022

New York, New York

| J. PAUL OETKEN

United States District Judge