Williams v. Schriro et al

Filing 63

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. For the forgoing reasons, I recommend that the plaintiff's motion for relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure be denied. Objections to R&R due by 10/31/2016. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 10/13/2016) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (rjm).

his case.

(Letter of Dwain Williams filed May 26, 2016).

On July

15, 2016, the court received another letter from the plaintiff
requesting relief from the court’s dismissal, citing Rule 60(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(Letter of Dwain Williams

dated July 6, 2016 (“July 6 Letter”), at 1-2,5).

In his letter,

the plaintiff claimed that his nearly three year delay was due to
his being hospitalized with endocarditis after his release from
prison.

(July 6 Letter at 6).

Along with the letter, the

plaintiff included a copy of a hospital discharge summary dated
March

26,

2016.

(Discharge

Summary

dated

March

26,

2016

(“Discharge Summary”), attached to July 6 Letter).
On August 4, 2016, I ordered the defendants to respond to the
motion to vacate the judgment.

The motion is now fully submitted.

Discussion
Under Rule 60(b), the court may relieve a party from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1)

mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly
discovered
evidence
that,
with
reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move
for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4)

the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged;
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed
or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer
equitable; or
(6)

any other reason that justifies relief.
2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

However, a motion under Rule 60(b) must be

made within a reasonable time, and for clauses (1), (2), and (3),
no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order being
challenged.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

An order vacating a final judgment is a “mechanism for
‘extraordinary judicial relief’ invoked only if the moving party
demonstrates ‘exceptional circumstances.’”

Ruotolo v. City of New

York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Paddington Partners
v. Bouchard, 34 F.3d 1132, 1142 (2d Cir. 1994)).

Decisions

pursuant to Rule 60(b) are within the sound discretion of the trial
court.

Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 561 F.3d 123, 126 (2d Cir.

2009).
A.

Rule 60(b)(1)

In the July 6 letter, the plaintiff characterizes his lack of
a response to the court’s original order as “excusable neglect.”
(July 6 Letter at 5).

In defending his conduct, the plaintiff

claims that he was unable to respond to meet the court’s deadline
because of his hospitalization.

(July 6 Letter at 6-7).

However, if I were to accept the plaintiff’s characterization
of his failure to respond to the order to amend as “excusable
neglect,” Rule 60(b)(1) would offer no remedy.

Motions under Rule

60(b)(1) must be made “no more than a year after the entry of the
judgment or order” from which the moving party is seeking relief.

3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

Since the original order was entered in

December 2013, relief under Rule 60(b)(1) is no longer available.
B.

Rule 60(b)(2)and(3)

While the plaintiff assets no claims of new evidence or fraud,
relief under either Rule 60(b)(2) or Rule 60(b)(3) would be
similarly unavailable in light of the one year time limit of Rule
60(c)(1).
C.

Rule 60(b)(4)

A judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) “only if the court that
rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the
parties, or if it acted in a manner inconsistent with due process
of law.”

Grace v. Bank Leumi Trust Co. of New York, 443 F.3d 180,

193 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Texlon Corp. Manufacturers v. Hanover
Commercial Corp., 596 F.2d 1092, 1099 (2d Cir. 1979)).

The court

here had both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction
over

the

parties.

Thus,

the

question

turns

on

whether

the

plaintiff’s due process rights were violated.
While Mr. Williams never received a copy of the court’s
judgment, he was well aware that the action was ongoing and failed
to update the court as to his current address.

It is well

established that all pro se plaintiffs have an obligation to inform
the court and defendants of any change of address.

Christian v.

Sposato, No. 15 CV 6874, 2016 WL 3647869, at *1-2 (E.D.N.Y. July 1,
2016).

Therefore, it was the failure of the plaintiff to pursue
4

his case diligently, rather than any violation of his due process
rights, that led to his not being informed of the court’s final
decision.
Therefore, the plaintiff’s may not attain relief under Rule
60(b)(4).
D.

60(b)(5)

Since the court’s judgment has not been “satisfied, released,
or discharged,” Rule 60(b)(5) is not a ground for relief.
E.

Rule 60(b)(6)

Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is not available “unless the
asserted grounds for relief are not recognized in clauses (1)-(5).”
In re Emergency Beacon Corp., 666 F.2d 754, 758 (2d Cir. 1981).
Therefore, if I accept the plaintiff’s characterization of his
mistake as “excusable neglect,” which falls under Rule 60(b)(1),
then relief under Rule 60(b)(6) would be barred.
However, since the submissions of a pro se litigant “must be
construed

liberally

and

interpreted

to

raise

the

strongest

arguments that they suggest,” I will overlook the plaintiff’s
characterization

and

consider

relief

under

Rule

60(b)(6).

Triestman v. Federal Bureau of Prison, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir.
2006)(emphasis omitted).
Under this subsection of the Rule, relief may be granted for
“any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the
5

judgment.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6).

However, this clause is

properly invoked only when there are “extraordinary circumstances”
justifying relief.
In

this

In re Emergency Beacon Corp., 666 F.2d at 758.

case,

the

plaintiff

has

not

demonstrated

“extraordinary circumstances” that would justify relief under Rule
60(b)(6).
summary

The only evidence he offers is a hospital discharge

from

March

26,

2016,

which

mentions

an

endocarditis

diagnosis from April 2014 as part of the patient’s history.
(Discharge Summary at 11). However, that diagnosis would have come
at least two months after the deadline to amend the complaint had
passed. The plaintiff offers no reason why he could not respond or
follow up with his case during the period he had to submit a new
amended complaint.
Therefore,

relief

under

Rule

60(b)(6)

is

similarly

unavailable.
Conclusion
For the forgoing reasons, I recommend that the plaintiff’s
motion for relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure be denied.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules

72, 6(a), and 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
parties shall have fourteen (14) days from this date to file
written

objections

to

this

Report

and

Recommendation.

Such

objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court, with extra
copies

delivered

to

the

chambers

6

of

the

Honorable

Paul

A.