Neroni v. Becker et al

Filing 54

ORDER - That Neroni's motion (Dkt. No. 52) is DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 5/10/2017. (Copy served via regular and certified mail)(jel, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________ FREDERICK J. NERONI, Plaintiff, 3:12-cv-1226 (GLS/DEP) v. CARL F. BECKER et al., Defendants. ________________________________ ORDER On April 24, 2017, plaintiff pro se Frederick J. Neroni moved pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) and (6) for an order vacating the court’s previous award of attorney’s fees. (Dkt. No. 52.) In his submission, Neroni also “demand[s]” that he be permitted to e-file (and further “demand[s] a response to [his] request within a week of receipt”), or, if not permitted to efile, he makes additional “demand[s]” that would afford him extra time to make future filings. (Id., Attach. 1 at 1.) In support of his motion for relief from the order and judgment, Neroni relies exclusively on what he perceives to be changes in decisional law since the court awarded fees in September 2013 as the basis of his request; he makes no attempt, however, to show how or why the order and judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4). (Dkt. No. 52 at 3-5.) Having failed to offer any reason as to why the order and judgment is “void,” Neroni’s argument appears to fall in the catch-all of Rule 60(b)(6), which permits the court to grant relief for “any . . . reason that justifies relief” not covered by a different provision of Rule 60(b). “‘[A]s a general matter, a mere change in decisional law does not constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ for the purposes of Rule 60(b)(6),’ and ‘the interest in finality outweighs’ the losing party’s concern ‘that justice was not done.’” Tapper v. Hearn, 833 F.3d 166, 172 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Marrero Pichardo v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 46, 56 (2d Cir. 2004); In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 741 F.3d 353, 357 (2d Cir. 2013)). The motion, which seeks relief related to an issue decided more three and one-half years ago, (Dkt. Nos. 37, 38), is therefore denied. Consequently, Neroni’s “demand” that he be permitted to e-file or received extra time for filing by mail is denied as moot inasmuch as this matter is closed and no further filings are necessary. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Neroni’s motion (Dkt. No. 52) is DENIED; and it is further 2 ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Order to Neroni by certified mail and to defendants in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. May 10, 2017 Albany, New York 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?