Daniel v. T & M Protection Resources LLC et al

Filing 216

ORDER: In light of Daniel's pro se status, the Court construes Daniel's motion liberally as a notice of appeal of this Court's July 9, 2020 order at Dkt. 215. Daniel's notice of appeal is timely as to that order. If Daniel does no t wish to appeal this Court's July 9, 2020 order, he is to file a letter, addressed to this Court, which indicates his intent to withdraw the notice of appeal. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to transmit this order and the attached notice of appeal to the Second Circuit, and to mail a copy of this order to Daniel. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 7/14/2020) (jwh) Transmission to Appeals Clerk. Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

Case 1:13-cv-04384-PAE-HBP Document 216 Filed 07/14/20 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
OTIS A. DANIEL,
Plaintiff,

13 Civ. 4384 (PAE)

-vORDER
T&M PROTECTION RESOURCES LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:
On March 10, 2020, pro se plaintiff Otis Daniel filed a complaint against defendants
Robert S. Tucker, Esq., and Steven I. Gutstein in Case No. 20 Civ. 2149, before the Hon. Louis
L. Stanton. On April 24, 2020, Judge Stanton issued an order, which construed Daniel’s
complaint as a request for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) from this Court’s
July 19, 2018 opinion. See No. 20 Civ. 2149 (LLS), Dkt. 4. The July 19, 2018 opinion awarded
judgment to defendant T&M Protection Resources LLC and was later affirmed by the Second
Circuit. See Dkt. 185 (July 19, 2018 opinion); Dkt. 208 (Second Circuit mandate).1 Judge
Stanton denied Daniel relief under Rule 60(b) and dismissed his remaining claims against Tucker
and Gutstein under the doctrine of claim preclusion. See No. 20 Civ. 2149 (LLS), Dkt. 4.
The Court recently became aware that on July 10, 2020, Daniel filed the attached motion
seeking an extension of time to file a notice of appeal for Judge’s Stanton’s April 24, 2020 order.
See No. 20 Civ. 2149 (LLS), Dkt. 7. To his request for an extension to appeal, Daniel attached a
July 9, 2020 order from this Court, Dkt. 215, which denied a request from Daniel to vacate the

1

Unless otherwise indicated, docket numbers refer to the docket of this case, No. 13 Civ. 4384
(PAE).

Case 1:13-cv-04384-PAE-HBP Document 216 Filed 07/14/20 Page 2 of 6

decision and judgment of this Court. See No. 20 Civ. 2149 (LLS), Dkt. 7 at 3–4. In light of
Daniel’s pro se status, the Court construes Daniel’s motion liberally as a notice of appeal of this
Court’s July 9, 2020 order at Dkt. 215. Daniel’s notice of appeal is timely as to that order. If
Daniel does not wish to appeal this Court’s July 9, 2020 order, he is to file a letter, addressed to
this Court, which indicates his intent to withdraw the notice of appeal.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to transmit this order and the attached notice
of appeal to the Second Circuit, and to mail a copy of this order to Daniel.
SO ORDERED.

PaJA.�

______________________________
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER
United States District Judge
Dated: July 14, 2020
New York, New York

2

Case 1:13-cv-04384-PAE-HBP Document 7 216 Filed 07/14/20 Page 3 of 6
Document Filed 07/10/20 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:20-cv-02149-LLS

Case 1:20-cv-02149-LLS Document 5-1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 3 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

2fj_CV

J11J4-

(l l $)(

)

MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE
OF APPEAL

I move under Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure for an extension oftime
to file a notice of appeal in this action. I would like to appeal the judgment
entered in this action on •

but did not file a notice of appeal within the required

time period because:

?.:,~'7lvx rz2;f !/!I
°t.fl:;W- JIZ3
Rev. 3/27/15

/OJvCJ
Zip Code

E-mail Address (if available)

Case 1:13-cv-04384-PAE-HBP Document 7 216 Filed 07/14/20 Page 4 of 6
Document Filed 07/10/20 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:20-cv-02149-LLS

, 2876411, Page1 of 1

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
ROBERT A. KATZMANN

CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE

CHIEF JUDGE

CLERK OF COURT

Date: July 02, 2020
Docket#: 18-235lcv
Short Title: Daniel v. T&M Protection Resources, LLC

DC Docket#: 13-cv-4384
DC Court: SONY (NEW YORK
CITY)
DC Judge : Engelmayer
DC Judge: Pitman

NOTICE OF NON-JURISDICTION
This is to acknowledge receipt of papers dated 07/01/2020, in the case referenced above.
Because this case was mandated on 08/23/2019, this Court no longer has jurisdiction to entertain
your request. For this reason, your papers are returned unfiled.
Inquiries regarding this case may be directed to 212-857-8560.

Case 1:13-cv-04384-PAE-HBP Document 7 216 Filed 07/14/20 Page 5 of 6
Document Filed 07/10/20 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:20-cv-02149-LLS

Case 1:13-cv-04384-PAE-HBP Document 215

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
OTIS A. DANIEL,
-v-

Plaintiff,

T&M PROTECTION RESOURCES LLC, et al.,

13 Civ. 4384 (PAE)
ORDER

Defendants.
PAUL A. ENG ELMAYER, District Judge:
The Court has received two filings from pro se plaintiff Otis Daniel. The first is a letter
alleging that his pro bono attorneys acted unethically and committed malpractice in representing
him. Dkt. 213. It is unclear what relief Daniel seeks with this letter. In any event, having
reviewed Daniel's letter in detail, the Court is unaware of any evidence or indication of
malpractice. Quite the contrary: Having presided over Daniel's case including trial, the Court's
assessment is that Daniel's counsel were uncommonly vigorous, dedicated, and effective.
Daniel has also submitted a motion to vacate the decision and judgment in this case.
Dkt. 214. In support, Daniel cites his July 25, 2018 motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 193, and to
the above letter complaining of misconduct by his counsel, Dkt. 213, in addition to the
complaints, his deposition testimony, and the trial transcript. Daniel also recently filed a motion
for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Dkt. 212. The Court, however, again
finds no reason to vacate the decisions or judgment in this case, and denies this motion, for the
reasons stated in its July 27, 2018 denial of Daniel's motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 195, and its
June 22, 2020 denial of Daniel's Rule 60(b) motion, Dkt. 212.

Case 1:13-cv-04384-PAE-HBP Document 7 216 Filed 07/14/20 Page 6 of 6
Document Filed 07/10/20 Page 4 of 4
Case 1:20-cv-02149-LLS

Case 1:13-cv-04384-PAE-HBP Document 215 Filed 07/09/20 Page 2 of 2

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order to Daniel. For
avoidance of doubt, this case remains closed.
SO ORDERED.

P~
!:!. G~lctbt

11

United States District Judge
Dated: July 9, 2020
New York, New York

2