09-3938-cv
The People of the State of New York v. Parenteau
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
R ULINGS BY SUM M ARY ORD ER DO NO T HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT . C ITATIO N TO A SU M M ARY O RD ER FILED O N O R AFTER
J AN U ARY 1, 2007, IS PERM ITTED AN D IS GO VERN ED BY F ED ERAL R U LE O F A PPELLATE P RO CED U RE 32.1 AN D THIS C OU RT ’S
L O CAL R U LE 32.1.1. W H EN C ITIN G A SU M M ARY O RD ER IN A D O CU M ENT FILED W ITH TH IS C OU RT , A PARTY M U ST CITE
EITHER TH E F ED ERAL A PPEN D IX O R AN ELECTRO N IC D ATABASE ( W ITH TH E N O TATIO N “ SU M M ARY O RD ER ”). A PARTY
CITIN G A SU M M ARY O RD ER M U ST SERVE A CO PY O F IT ON AN Y PARTY N O T REPRESENTED B Y CO U N SEL .
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 24th day
of June, two thousand and ten.
PRESENT:
GUIDO CALABRESI,
ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
DENNY CHIN,
Circuit Judges.
_______________________________________________
The People of the State of New York, Town of Lloyd Court,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 09-3938-cv
Ed Parenteau,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________________________
For Appellant: ED (GEORGE) PARENTEAU, pro
se, Kearny, New Jersey.
For Appellee: Attorney General’s Office, State of
New York, New York, New York.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Defendant-Appellant Ed Parenteau, pro se, appeals from the judgment of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Suddaby, J.), denying Appellant’s
second motion for reconsideration from the dismissal of his notice of removal. We assume the
parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history.
Appellant’s notice of appeal references only the district court’s September 2009 order
denying Appellant’s second motion for reconsideration. It does not mention the district court’s
August 2009 order denying his first motion for reconsideration or the July 2009 order dismissing
the notice of removal. Although pro se notices of appeal should be liberally construed, Simmons
v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 1995), the failure to identify an order in a notice of appeal
deprives this Court of jurisdiction to review that order. New Phone Co. v. City of New York, 498
F.3d 127, 131 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (“Our jurisdiction . . . depends on whether the intent to
appeal from [a] decision is clear on the face of, or can be inferred from, the notice[] of appeal.”).
Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review the earlier orders.
We review an appeal from the denial of a motion for reconsideration for an abuse of
discretion. Marrero Pichardo v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 46, 55 (2d Cir. 2004). A motion for
reconsideration is “generally not favored and is properly granted only upon a showing of
exceptional circumstances.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). “[R]econsideration 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.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Thus, a
motion to reconsider should not be granted where the moving party is solely attempting to
relitigate an issue that already has been decided. Id.
2
Appellant did not point to any change in law that would have altered the district court’s
findings, but, rather, reiterated his earlier arguments that the state court action was improperly
converted into a criminal action when it was, in fact, a civil action. Moreover, although
Appellant claimed that the district court did not address his amended notice of removal or his
motion to rescind the district court’s order dismissing his notice of removal, the district court
specifically considered both documents. The district court correctly determined that Appellant
had not established any basis for removal. The court also considered Appellant’s motion to
rescind, construed it as a motion for reconsideration, and denied the motion.
We have reviewed Appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3