Opinion ID: 1358526
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Motions Panel's Dismissal of the Appeal of the Summary Judgment Ruling

Text: Shomo argues that this Court's prior dismissal of the appeal of the summary judgment ruling should be vacated because the district court's discovery rulings prevented Shomo from obtaining evidence to oppose defendants' motion for summary judgment. Although the law of the case doctrine provides that an appellate court's decision should generally be adhered to by that court in subsequent stages in the same case, United States v. Quintieri, 306 F.3d 1217, 1225 (2d Cir. 2002) (quotation marks omitted), it does not deprive an appellate court of discretion to reconsider its own prior rulings. Rezzonico v. H & R Block, Inc., 182 F.3d 144, 149 (2d Cir.1999). However, we will not revisit our prior rulings absent `cogent' or `compelling' reasons. Id. (quoting Doe v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir.1983)). A motions panel of this Court rejected Shomo's appeal of the summary judgment ruling and affirmed the district court. The motions panel had Shomo's discovery-related argument before it on the motion for reconsideration, and denied that motion. Because Shomo has not adequately shown that the district court prevented him from taking discovery, we decline to revisit the motions panel's decisions. See Ollman v. Special Bd. of Adjustment No. 1063, 527 F.3d 239, 251 (2d Cir.2008) (declining to revisit a claim dismissed by a motions panel in the absence of a sufficient showing that the claim had potential merit).