1

08- 5853- cv J eff r eys v. U ni t ed T echn ol og i es UN ITED STA TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT 

## SUMMA RY ORDER Rulings by summ ary ord er do no t have precedent ial effect. Citatio n to sum mary or ders filed after January 1, 2007, is perm itted an d is governed b y this court ’s Loca l Rule 32.1 and F ed er al Ru le of App ella te P r oc ed ur e 32 .1. In abrie f o r ot he r pape r inwh ic h ali ti ga ntci te s a su m m ar y o r de r , i n e achpa r ag r ap h i n whi cha ci ta ti onap pe ar s, a t l eas t o ne ci ta ti onm us t e it he r be to th e Federal Append ix or be accompanied by t he notat ion: “(sum mary or der) .” A party citing a sum mary or der m ust serve a copy of thatsummar y order togeth er with t he paper in which the sum mary or der is cited onany party n ot rep resented by coun sel unless the summary or de r is a vai la bl e i n a n e le ct r on ic da ta ba se whi chis p ub li cl y ac ces sib le wi th ou t p aym en t o f f ee (such as the datab ase available at http:// www.ca2.uscourts.gov/). If no cop y is served by reason of th e availability of th e order on such a database, the cit ation m ust include r eference to that d atabase and the docketnumb er of t he case in which the or der was entered. At a stated term

of the Un ited Stat es Court of Appeals for t he Second Circuit , held at th e Daniel Pat rick Moynihan Un ited Stat es Courthouse, 500 Pearl St reet, in t he City of New York, onth e tw en ty - fi r stda

y o f D ece m be r , t

wo th ou san d a nd

ni ne . PR E SE NT: G UI DO C AL AB RE SI , J OS É A. C AB R ANES , B A R R I NGT ON D. P AR KER ,

Circuit Jud ges.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x T H O M AS J. J EF F R EYS ,

Pl aint iff -A ppe lla nt ,
-v .- No . 08 -5 853 -c v

U NI T ED T E C H N O LO G I E S C OR P OR A T I ON , S I KOR S KY A I RCRA FT D I V I S I ON , Defenda nt-App ellee

.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x2

F OR P LAIN TIF F
- AP P ELLAN T: Tho ma s Je ffre ys, W a te rbu ry , C T, pro se . FOR DEF ENDANTS-APP ELL EES: Edwa r d J . D emp s ey, D ay P it ney , LLP, Har fo r d, CT

. Appea l from a November 12, 2008 order of the United States Distr ict Court for the Dis trict of Con nec ti cut

(D om inic J . Sq

uat r it o, Judge ). UPON DUE CONSIDERAT ION, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, A DJUDGED, AND DE CRE ED th at the j ud gm ent of th e Di s tr ict Cou r t b e AF F IRME D

. Pl ain ti ff -a pp ell ant T ho mas J ef

fr eys (“ pl ain ti ff

”) , pro se , appea ls fr om the Distr ict Court’s post

ju dgm ent or der den yin g hi s mo ti onfo r

r eco ns id er ati oninhi s s ui t u nd er th e Am er ican s with D is abi lit

ies Act (“ADA ”) aga inst defendant-appellee United Technologie s Corporation, Sikors ky Aircraft Division (“United Technologie s” or “defendant”). In August 1999, the Distr ict Court granted summary judgment for defendant aga inst plaintiff, f inding that pla intiff did not have a disability within the mea ni ng o f the A DA. We af fi r medth e Di s tr

ict Cou r t’ s ju dgm ent

inDec emb er

200 0. See Je

ffreys v . United Techs. Corp , 242 F.3d 365 (2d C ir. 2000). Between 199 9 and 2003 , plaintiff filed five post-judgment mo ti on s fo r

r eli ef th at w er e eachdeniedby the D is tr ict Cou r t. Pl ain ti ff

filedtw o u ns ucc es s ful ap peal s from these denia ls in our Court. I n June 2006, pla intiff f iled a motion for

reconsideration of the grant of s um mar y ju dgm ent , ar

gui ng that he h ad dis cov er ed n ew ev id enc e in200 4. B et

ween200 6 an d 2 008 , pl ain ti ff filedmult ip le m ot io ns andr equ es ts with the D is tr ict Cou r t, and th e Di s tr

ict Cou r t ult im ate ly deniedpl ain ti ff

’s mo ti onfo r

r eco ns id er ati oninSep te mb er 200 8. P lai nt

if f f ile d an other

mo ti onin No vem ber

200 8 inwhi ch h e as s er te d h e hadno t r ecei vedth e Di s tr

ict Cou r t’ s Sep te mb er

or der un til October 2008. The Distr

ict Court denied pl aintiff’s November 2008 motion in an order entered on November 12, 2008. On November 24, 2008, pl aintiff filed a notice of appeal chall enging the denial of his June 2006 motion for

reconsideration and the District Court’s November 2008 order. We assume th e par ti es ’ f

amilia r it y with the r emainin g f

act s , p r oce du r al h is to ry, an d i s s ues onapp eal. Pl ain ti ff ’s no ti ce o f a pp eal i s ti mel y f r om th e Di s tr

ict Cou r t’ s or der

of No vem ber

12, 200 8 denying plaintiff’s November 2008 motion. Plaintiff characterize d that motion as a gene ral motion for reconsideration brought under Rule 60(a) of the Federal R ules of Civil Procedure. It appea rs , howeve r, th at the m ot

io n wo ul d b e mo r e accu r ate ly co ns tr uedas a mo ti onto r eop en p lai nt if f’ s ti me t o ap peal from the District Court’s September 2008 de nial of an e arlier motion for r econsideration, pursuant to Rul e 4(a)( 6) , o r

as a mo ti ons eeki ng r eco ns id er ati onof th e Sep te mb er

200 8 o r der

bas ed o n p lai nt

if f’ s all egednew

ly dis cov er ed e vid enc e. In any eve nt, we revie w for “abuse of discretion” both a distr ict court’s denial of a motion for ext ens io n o f t

im e t o f ile an ap peal , see Silivanch v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc. , 333 F.3d 355, 36 2 (2d Cir. 2003), andit s denial

of a mo ti onfo r

r eco ns id er ati on , see, e.g

. , Universal Chu rch v. Geltzer , 46 3 F .3d218 , 22 8 (

2d Cir . 20 06)

. Cf. Sim s v. Blo t

, 53 4 F .3d117 , 13 2 (

2d Cir . 20 08) (“ A di s tr

ict cou r t h as abu s ed i ts di s cr et io n i f it bas ed i ts r ul

in g onan er r on eou s vie w of th e law or ona cle arly er r on eou s as s es s men t o f the e vid enc e,3

or r end er ed a d ecis io n that

cann ot be l ocat ed w

ithi n the r ang e of

per mi s s ib le d ecis io ns .” (

in te r nal quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted). We can no t c on clu de that

th e Di s tr ict Cou r t “ abu s ed i ts di s cr et

io n” i n d eny

in g pl ain ti ff

’s mo ti onho weve r

it is con s tr ued . I f w e r ead the m ot io n as on e f

or r eco ns id er ati on , the D is tr ict Cou r t did no t e r r indi s mi s s in g it . P lai nt

if f did no t d emo ns tr ate th at h e hadnew ly dis cov er ed e vid enc e t hat was material to the District Court’s determination whe n it iss ued summary judgment that plaintiff was not “di s abl ed” withi n the m eani ng o f the A DA. See Bo ule v. Hutton , 328 F.3d 84, 95 (2d C ir. 2003) (noting th at Rule 6 0(

b) (2) m ot io ns may be gr ant ed o nly “wh en the m ov ant pr es ent s new

ly dis cov er ed e vid enc e th at c ould no t h ave b eendi s cov er ed e arlie r and th at i s r elev ant

to th e me r

it s of th e li ti gat io n”) . N or

di d the Distr ict Court err in denying pla intiff’s motion if it is instead interpreted as a motion for extending the time to appea l pursuant to Rule 4(a)(6). Plaintiff did not argue that he meets the requirements for gr ant in g a Ru le 4 (a) (6 ) m ot

io n. Sp ecif

ically, pl ain ti ff

faile d t o alleg e wh y no par ty would be p r eju di ced by the e xt ens io n af

te r th e Di s tr ict Cou r t h ad d et er mi nedinan ea rlie r dec is io n that

pr eju di ce wo ul d r es ul t from s uch an e xtension. Pla in ti ff h a s a lso mo ve d to ex pa nd the re co rd t o i nc lu de hi s a ll eg ed ly ne w e vi de nc e. Bec a use plaintiff has not demonstrated that the documents he has identified c ontain material facts that were om it te d f r om or mi s s tat ed i n the r eco r d, hi s mo ti onto s up pl eme nt th e r eco r d i s denied

. See Fe d. R. App . P . 10 (a) , ( e) (2). Fi nally, af te r r evi ewin g t he e xt ens ive , o ver lap pi ng m ot

io ns mad e by

pl ain ti ff , we n ow i s s ue a note of warning to Jeffr eys regarding his duplica tive filings. Whe n “a litig ant has a history of filing vexa tious, harass ing or duplicative lawsuits, courts may impose sanctions, including restr ictions on futur e acces s to th e ju di cial

s ys te m. ” Hong Mai Sa v. Doe , 406 F.3d 155, 15 8 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotations mar ks andcit ati on s om it te d) . P lai nt if f h as filedat l eas t thr ee ap peal s inou r Cou r t an d at

leas t s even motions with the Dis trict Court, all related to the District Court’s or der of s ummary judgment on pl ain ti ff ’s ADAclai m i n f

avo r of def end ant s . We wi s h t o cau ti onJ ef fr eys th at s in ce h is r epe ate d f ili ngs relate to similar facts and issues and are direc ted at one pa rty, fur ther filings of any c omplaint or any appea l based on the same fac ts and iss ues may result in the iss uance of sanctions or other res trictions on his us e of the federal court system. CONCLUSI ON

Acc ordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the Dis trict Court.

FOR THE C OU R

T, Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk of Court
By _______________________________