United States District Court, D. Connecticut
VICTOR J. VELASCO, Plaintiff,
SCOTT SEMPLE, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
A. Dooley United States District Judge
plaintiff, Victor J. Velasco (“Velasco”),
commenced this action by filing a complaint naming 137
defendants and alleging conduct which spanned a period of
eight years. Velasco sought to assert claims for violation of
his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eight, and
Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the
Prison Rape Elimination Act, the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act, the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and
42 U.S.C §§ 1981, 1982, 1985, and 1986. On July 10,
2019, the Court issued an Initial Review Order, Doc. No. 11,
identifying several deficiencies in the Complaint and
directing Velasco to file an Amended Complaint correcting
those deficiencies. Specifically, the Court ordered Velasco
to specify which defendants were involved in each of his
claims as well as when the events underlying each claim
occurred. In light of the enormity of the complaint, the
number of defendants and the scope of the claims, the Court
also advised Velasco regarding the rules on joinder of claims
August 13, 2019, Velasco filed an Amended Complaint which
included all of the claims and defendants from the original
Complaint and even sought to add an additional claim. The
Court thereafter determined that the claims were improperly
joined and on August 28, 2019, the Court dismissed all claims
except for the arguably related claims of deliberate
indifference to his medical needs as asserted against 22
defendants. Velasco now seeks reconsideration of that order.
standard for granting reconsideration is strict.
Reconsideration will be granted only if the moving party can
identify controlling decisions or data that the Court
overlooked and that would reasonably be expected to alter the
Court's decision. See Oparah v. New York City
Dep't of Educ., 670 Fed.Appx. 25, 26 (2d Cir. 2016)
(citing Schrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255,
257 (2d Cir. 1995)); see also D. Conn. L. R. 7(c)
(requiring the movant to file along with the motion for
reconsideration “a memorandum setting forth concisely
the controlling decisions or data the movant believes the
are three grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration:
“an intervening change of controlling law, the
availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear
error or prevent manifest injustice.” Lauray v.
Hannah, No. 3:14-CV-838(KAD), 2019 WL 494623, at *1 (D.
Conn. Feb. 8, 2019) (quoting Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of
Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Trust, 729 F.3d 99,
104 (2d Cir. 2013)) (internal quotation marks omitted). If
the Court “overlooked controlling decisions or factual
matters that were put before it on the underlying motion,
” reconsideration is appropriate. Eisemann v.
Greene, 204 F.3d 393, 395 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam).
However, a motion for reconsideration should be denied when
the movant “seeks solely to relitigate an issue already
decided.” Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257; Waller
v. City of Middletown, 89 F.Supp.3d 279, 282 (D. Conn.
Velasco has not identified any controlling law or facts that
the Court overlooked in reaching its decision. Although he
states that he can show that his claims all run together, he
does not do so. “[T]he overlap in questions of law or
fact must be ‘substantial' in order for joinder to
be appropriate.” Golden Goose Deluxe Brand v.
Aierbushe, No. 19-CV-2518(VEC), 2019 WL 2162715, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2019). Based on review of the original and
amended complaints, it appears that Velasco considers all the
claims related because they are in some manner connected to
his designation or confinement as a Security Risk Group
Member. This is not a sufficient basis to support joinder of
all of these disparate claims. See, e.g., Deskovic v.
City of Peekskill, 673 F.Supp.2d 154, 163-64 (S.D.N.Y.
2009) (actions of city and county officials resulting in
plaintiff's conviction improperly joined with claims
against correctional officials during period of confinement;
city and county officials could not reasonably foresee sexual
assault by correctional officer). Velasco has not identified
any facts that the Court overlooked in the prior order. Thus,
reconsideration is not warranted.
motion for reconsideration [Doc. No. 17] is
is directed to file a Second Amended Complaint including only
his claims for deliberate indifference to medical needs
against defendants Fryer, Farinella, Crabbe, Brenan, Ward,
McKrystal, Clements, Longo, Patterson, Ogarrdo, Eggen,
Frayne, Gillian, Lightner, Greene, Whitely, Christine Doe,
LaBonte, Knight, Kilham, Durko, and Brown on or before
November 1, 2019.