United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RUF R. DIAZ, Plaintiff,
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
RULING ON MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
WILLIAM I. GARFINKEL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
October 30, 2019, the Court affirmed the Commissioner's
decision denying Disability Insurance Benefits. [Doc. #23].
Before the Court is Plaintiff Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment arguing, among other things, that the Court
“committed a clear error of law by ignoring the clear
mandate set forth in Lockwood v. Comm'r of Social
Security Admin., 914 F.3d 87, 92 (2d Cir. 2019).”
[Doc. #25]. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's
motion is DENIED.
Rule 59(e) does not prescribe specific grounds for granting a
motion to alter or amend an otherwise final judgment, we
agree with our sister circuits that district courts may alter
or amend judgment “to correct a clear error of law or
prevent manifest injustice.” Munafo v. Metro.
Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2004)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “The
standard for granting such a motion is strict, and
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.” Davids v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 977
F.Supp.2d 171, 185 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting Shrader v.
CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995));
see Rafter v. Liddle, 288 Fed.Appx. 768, 769 (2d
Cir. 2008) (same). “Courts have recognized three major
grounds justifying reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e):
‘an intervening change of controlling law, the
availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear
error or prevent manifest injustice.'” Id.
(quoting Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation
Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir.1992) (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
59(e) permits a court to alter or amend a judgment, but it
may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise
arguments or present evidence that could have been raised
prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co.
v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n.5, 128 S.Ct. 2605, 171
L.Ed.2d 570 (2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
“A motion that merely repeats its previous position and
asserts the Court was in error is not the proper basis for
the grant of a motion for reargument.” Guyer v.
Lehman, No. CIV. A. 90-6204, 1990 WL 162095, at *1 (E.D.
Pa. Oct. 23, 1990) (citing New York Guardian Mortgage
Corp. v. Cleland, 473 F.Supp. 409, 420 (S.D.N.Y.
1979)).“A district court's denial of a party's
motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) is ...
reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Munafo,
381 F.3d at 105.
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that there has been a change
in controlling, law, or new evidence, or that there was a
clear error of law that would result in manifest injustice.
Nor, has Plaintiff shown that the Court overlooked relevant
caselaw. Rather, Plaintiff merely restates her
original arguments and cites the same caselaw
previously considered by the Court. Disagreement with the
Court's findings is not a basis for a Rule 59(e) motion.
The Court has carefully reviewed its decision,
Plaintiff's Motion to Alter and Amend and the arguments
and cases cited therein and adheres to its ruling denying
Disability Insurance Benefits. Plaintiff's argument
provides no new grounds for the Court to alter or amend its
prior ruling pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).
Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
[Doc. #25] is DENIED.
not a recommended ruling. The consent of the parties allows
this magistrate judge to direct the entry of a judgment of
the district court in accordance with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Appeals can be made directly to the
appropriate United States Court of Appeals from this
judgment. See 28 U.S.C. §636(c)(3);
 The President nominated Andrew M. Saul
to be Commissioner of Social Security; the Senate Confirmed
his appointment on June 4, 2019, vote number 133. He
is substituted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d). The Clerk is
directed to amend ...