GOONEWARDENA v. NORTH SHORE LONG ISLAND JEWISH HEALTH SYSTEM, 11-CV-2456 (NGG) (LB). (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. New York
Number: infdco20120201b25
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 31, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 31, 2012
Summary: ORDER NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, District Judge. Plaintiff Prananna W. Goonewardena, who is pro se, purports to moves for my recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455(a) and (b)(1). (Docket Entry # 95.) This is his second such motion (see First Mot. for Recusal (Docket Entry # 85); Order Denying Mot. for Recusal (Docket Entry # 87).), and so ordinarily it would be barred by the law of the case doctrine. 1 Because Goonewardena is pro se, however, the court will construe his submission liberally as a moti
Summary: ORDER NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, District Judge. Plaintiff Prananna W. Goonewardena, who is pro se, purports to moves for my recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455(a) and (b)(1). (Docket Entry # 95.) This is his second such motion (see First Mot. for Recusal (Docket Entry # 85); Order Denying Mot. for Recusal (Docket Entry # 87).), and so ordinarily it would be barred by the law of the case doctrine. 1 Because Goonewardena is pro se, however, the court will construe his submission liberally as a motio..
More
ORDER
NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, District Judge.
Plaintiff Prananna W. Goonewardena, who is pro se, purports to moves for my recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b)(1). (Docket Entry # 95.) This is his second such motion (see First Mot. for Recusal (Docket Entry # 85); Order Denying Mot. for Recusal (Docket Entry # 87).), and so ordinarily it would be barred by the law of the case doctrine.1 Because Goonewardena is pro se, however, the court will construe his submission liberally as a motion for reconsideration. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Goonewardena points to no change in the law, new evidence,2 or other grounds that would support reconsideration of his original motion. Cf. Vlahadamis v. Kieran, No. 08-CV-2976 (DRH) (AKT), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8228, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 24 2012) ("The major grounds justifying reconsideration are an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." (quoting Virgin Atl. Airways v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, his motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Here, Goonewardena cites both 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a) and (b)(1). In his original motion for recusal he only cited subsection (a). (See First Mot. for Recusal (Docket Entry # 85).) The added reference to subsection (b)(1) does not make Goonewardena's second motion any less duplicative of his first motion because his argument for recusal remains the same—that I am biased against him because I have failed to rule in his favor on various motions.
2. What Goonewardena describes as "new evidence" is nothing more than newspaper editorials about an unrelated case pending before the court.
Source: Leagle
