WILLIAMS v. CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE (2019)

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Llewellyn Angelo Williams, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 complaint and granting summary judgment with respect to all claims in favor of defendants, the City of New Rochelle, the city's police department, and several named police officers. Williams also appeals the court's subsequent denial of his motion for reconsideration. In the underlying complaint, Williams, the owner of a company that “boots” vehicles in the City of New Rochelle and surrounding areas, alleged that a local ordinance governing booting, Chapter 316 of the New Rochelle City Code, was amended in 2012 to discriminate against him, and that police officers enforced the ordinance against him more strictly than against a comparable competitor because of his race. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo.” Garcia v. Hartford Police Dep't, 706 F.3d 120, 126 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam).¹ “[S]ummary judgment may be granted only if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law ․ resolv[ing] all ambiguities and draw[ing] all inferences against the moving party.” Id. “[W]e generally review motions pursuant to the provisions of Rule 60(b) for abuse of discretion, [but] we review de novo a district court's denial of a Rule 60(b)(4) motion.” City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 138 (2d Cir. 2011).

We affirm the judgment and the denial of reconsideration for the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough December 7, 2017 decision and December 20, 2018 orders. In the incidents upon which Williams bases his claims, he has not established that there was any differential treatment, or that any differential treatment occurred intentionally or on the basis of race. Williams’ motion for reconsideration, filed more than one year after judgment, identified no valid legal basis for the relief he requested.

We have considered all of Appellant's remaining arguments and find no reason to reverse the district court. We do not consider Williams’ claims raised for the first time on appeal and, similarly, as “[f]actfinding is the basic responsibility of district courts,” we cannot “resolve in the first instance [any] factual dispute which has not been considered by the District Court.” Harrison v. Republic of Sudan, 838 F.3d 86, 96 (2d Cir. 2016). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to defendants and the district court's orders denying reconsideration.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Unless otherwise noted, when quoting cases, all internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations are omitted.