Smith v. Dodge et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________________
FREDERICK SMITH,
Plaintiff,
vs. 9:18-CV-1066
(MAD/CBF)
C.O. STEVEN DODGE, C.O. JASON ASHLINE,
C.O. PETER MCNALLY, and SERGEANT
WILLIAM MURRAY,
Defendants.
____________________________________________
APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:
FREDERICK SMITH
15-A-1771
Green Haven Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 4000
Stormville, New York 12582
Plaintiff, pro se
OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK KONSTANDINOS D. LERIS, AAG
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL LAUREN ROSE ROSENBERG, AAG
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
Attorneys for Defendants
Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER
On May 7, 2026, the Court denied the following filings from the pro se Plaintiff: (1) two
appeals of Magistrate Judge Therese Dancks's discovery decisions; (2) a motion for a preliminary
injunction; (3) a motion for leave to appeal; and (4) a request for leave to file a motion for
sanctions. See Dkt. No. 226. On May 29, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. See
Dkt. No. 227. That same day, he filed objections to the Court's decision. See Dkt No. 228.
Case 9:18-cv-01066-MAD-CBF Document 229 Filed 06/04/26 Page 1 of 6

2
As an initial matter, this Court's Local Rules state that "a party may file and serve a
motion for reconsideration or reargument no later than FOURTEEN DAYS after the entry of the
challenged judgment, order, or decree." N.D.N.Y. L.R. 60.1. The Court's Memorandum-
Decision and Order was issued on May 7, 2026, giving Plaintiff until May 21, 2026, to file his
motion. Plaintiff dates his submissions as being written on May 21, 2026. See Dkt. No. 227 at 3,
5, 15; Dkt. No. 228 at 2, 8, 11. The postage on the envelope for Plaintiff's filings indicates it was
received by the post office on May 28, 2026. See Dkt. No. 227 at 16; Dkt. No. 228 at 12.
However, Plaintiff states "[t]hat on May 21, no later than May 24, I did in fact place" the filings
"[i]n an agent of DOCCS['s] hands to place in the U.S. depository mailbox at Green Haven"
correctional facility. Dkt. No. 228 at 11. Plaintiff wrote, "Sworn to before me this 21st day of
May 2026." Dkt. No. 228 at 11. Plaintiff signed that affirmation himself and did not obtain the
signature from a notary.
"'Where a prisoner proceeds pro se, the filing date is governed by the 'prisoner mailbox
rule,' which provides that the effective filing date is the day upon which the prisoner delivers the
petition to prison officials for mailing.'" Viera v. Sheahan, 531 F. Supp. 3d 666, 670 (W.D.N.Y.
2021) (quoting Mingo v. United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 591, 593 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)); see also
Fuentes v. New York State Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision, No. 23-CV-9464, 2025 WL
1636199, *7 (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2025). As Plaintiff is a pro se incarcerated individual and he
asserted in a signed statement that he gave his filings to DOCCS personnel on the final day of the
deadline to file a motion for reconsideration, the Court will consider the merits of his filings.
Having reviewed the arguments made by Plaintiff, the Court finds there are no grounds
which support reconsideration of the Court's May decision.
Case 9:18-cv-01066-MAD-CBF Document 229 Filed 06/04/26 Page 2 of 6

3
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court's decision insofar as it denied him leave to
file a motion for sanctions against Defendants. See Dkt. No. 227 at 8-9. Plaintiff argues that the
Court had no authority to deny him leave to make his motion and failed to address the merits of
his arguments supporting the imposition of sanctions against Defendants. See id. at 9-10.
Plaintiff also summarily asserts that defense counsel has violated their duties "not to burden the
NDNY Court with unnecessary litigation, obligation to stipulate whenever possible, to avoid
offering clearly unacceptable or inadmissible evidence, and to cooperate in supplying documents
and in preparing impartial experts in Plaintiff Smiths case." Id. at 12. Plaintiff asserts that the
Court's denial of his request for leave to file the motion for sanctions prevented him from
"present[ing his] best arguments." Id. at 13.
"[A] prior ruling will only be reconsidered and vacated if: (1) the law has changed since
that ruling was first issued; (2) new evidence not previously available comes to light; or (3)
reconsideration is necessary to remedy a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice."
Grant v. Lockett, 610 F. Supp. 3d 448, 450 (N.D.N.Y. 2022) (citing Delaney v. Selsky, 899 F.
Supp. 923, 925 (N.D.N.Y. 1995)); see also Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956
F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992). "Accordingly, the standard for granting a motion for
reconsideration 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.'" Commerzbank AG v.
U.S. Bank, N.A., 100 F.4th 362, 377 (2d Cir. 2024) (quoting Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d
255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)).
First, to the extent the Court denied Plaintiff leave to file a more complete motion for
sanctions, "[t]t is well established that district courts possess the 'inherent power' and
Case 9:18-cv-01066-MAD-CBF Document 229 Filed 06/04/26 Page 3 of 6

4
responsibility to manage their dockets 'so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases.'" In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 722 F.3d 483, 487 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)). This case has been pending for nearly
eight years and concerns an alleged use of force that occurred nearly eleven years ago. See Dkt.
No. 1. The filing of a motion for sanctions would delay the case even further, which is why the
Court exercised its discretion to consider the merits of Plaintiff's sanctions request as part of the
May decision. See Dkt. No. 226 at 39. The Court found that Plaintiff had not demonstrated the
"extreme circumstances" necessary for imposing sanctions. Id. Plaintiff has not presented any
new information in his motion for reconsideration or objections which call that decision into
question. See Dkt. Nos. 227, 228. Plaintiff likewise has not presented any cases which this Court
overlooked or new facts which support reconsideration of the Court's decision that Plaintiff can
challenge the veracity of any documents relied on by Defendants in his response to a dispositive
motion or at trial. See id. at 39-40.
Plaintiff also seeks reconsideration of the Court's denial of his request for leave to appeal
the denial of his motion to amend. See Dkt. No. 228.1 Plaintiff contends this Court and Chief
Judge Brenda K. Sannes recently came to different opinions about the relation back doctrine
concerning amended complaints. See id. at 3-4. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that "[t]hese two
recent decisions by Ch[ief] District Judge Sannes and District Judge D'Agostino within the
NNDY within days of each other (1) involves a controlling question of flaw (2) as to which there
is a substantial ground for difference of opinion [and] (3) an immediate appeal if granted/then
decided favorable to the Plaintiff would terminate the current operative pleading and Plaintiff's
1 The Court set forth the law relevant to permitting an interlocutory appeal in its May decision,
see Dkt. No. 226 at 36-37, and assumes the parties' familiarity with the same.
Case 9:18-cv-01066-MAD-CBF Document 229 Filed 06/04/26 Page 4 of 6

5
request for appeal interlocutory order . . . ." Id. at 4. Plaintiff cites Chief Judge Sannes's decision
as "Braxton v. Bruen 2026 WL 1142373." Id. at 3.
In Braxton, Chief Judge Sannes came to a similar conclusion as the one reached by this
Court in its May decision—that "[t]he claim against [the defendant correctional superintendent]
does not relate back to either prior complaint, and must be dismissed as barred by the statute of
limitations." Braxton v. Bruen, No. 9:17-CV-01346, 2026 WL 1142373, *16 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 28,
2026) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 15(c)(1)(C)(ii)). Chief Judge Sannes concluded as such because the
plaintiff did not establish that he made a mistake of identity in his earlier complaint and the
defendant "had no reason to" know that he would be named in the lawsuit. Id. This Court
engaged in the same analysis in its May decision and concluded that Plaintiff did not make any
mistakes of identity in naming Defendants his earlier pleadings and the proposed new defendants
had no reason to know they would named in this case. See Dkt. No. 226 at 12, 14.
Plaintiff has not set forth a controlling question of law for which there is a substantial
difference of opinion. Rather, he has cited a case which supports the Court's decision. Plaintiff
has not provided any other justification which supports reconsideration; therefore, the Court
declines to reconsider its denial of leave to file an interlocutory appeal.
Plaintiff has now filed one appeal to the Second Circuit, two appeals from discovery
decisions to this Court, and two motions for reconsideration. See Dkt. Nos. 37, 189, 205, 167,
185, 227. As stated, this case has been pending for nearly eight years. See Dkt. No. 1. This case
needs to proceed with dispositive motions and/or trial. The Court will not consider any further
submissions related to its previous orders or discovery decisions. The dispositive motion deadline
remains June 30, 2026, and no extensions of that deadline will be considered absent exceptional
circumstances.
Case 9:18-cv-01066-MAD-CBF Document 229 Filed 06/04/26 Page 5 of 6

6
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and accompanying objections (Dkt.
Nos. 227, 228) are DENIED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on the parties accordance
with the local rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 4, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 9:18-cv-01066-MAD-CBF Document 229 Filed 06/04/26 Page 6 of 6