Jeter v. Wiley et al

Filing 12

ORDER: Plaintif's motions are DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the following motions: 14-CV-2724, ECF 10-11; 14-CV-3976, ECF 10; 14-CV-4006, ECF 13; 14-CV-5269, ECF 14; 14-CV-5513, ECF 7; 14-CV-5995, ECF 7; 14-CV-62 17, ECF 8; 15-CV-6802, ECF 8; 15-CV-7040, ECF 10; 15-CV-7076, ECF 8; 15-CV-7278,ECF 7-8; 14- CV-6221, ECF 10.The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 3/11/2025) (tg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SHARON JETER,
Plaintiff,
-against-

ORDER
14-CV-2724 (LAP)

JUDGE WILEY, et al.,
Defendants.

SHARON JETER,
Plaintiff,
-against-

14-CV-3976 (LAP)

JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE, et al.,
Defendants.
SHARON JETER,
Plaintiff,
-against-

14-CV-4006 (LAP)

FEDERAL RESERVE, et al.,
Defendants.
SHARON JETER,
Plaintiff,
-againstBARACK OBAMA, et al.,
Defendants.

14-CV-5269 (LAP)

SHARON JETER,
Plaintiff,

14-CV-5513 (LAP)

-againstDOC AND ITS COUNTERPARTS IN USA,
et al.,
Defendants.
SHARON JETER,
Plaintiff,

14-CV-5995 (LAP)

-againstUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et
al,
Defendant.
SHARON JETER,
Plaintiff,

14-CV-6217 (LAP)

-againstUNITED
al.,

STATES

OF

AMERICA,

et

Defendants.
SHARON JETER,
Plaintiff,

15-CV-6802 (LAP)

-againstCNYPC, et al.,
Defendants.

2

SHARON JETER,
Plaintiff,

15-CV-7040 (LAP)

-againstCNYPC, et al.,
Defendants.
SHARON JETER,
Plaintiff,

15-CV-7076 (LAP)

-againstBEYONCE, et al.,
Defendants.
SHARON JETER,
Plaintiff,

15-CV-7278 (LAP)

-againstBARACK OBAMA, et al,
Defendants.
SHARON JETER,
Plaintiff,

14-CV-6221 (LAP)

-againstJUDGE WILEY, et al,
Defendants.

LORETTA A. PRESKA, United States District Judge:

3

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-captioned cases
in 2014 and 2015.

Many cases were dismissed without prejudice

soon after filing on procedural grounds (e.g., for failure to
submit

an

in

forma

pauperis

(“IFP”)

application

or

sign

the

complaint); some were dismissed because Plaintiff had filed the
cases as a prisoner, but she is barred, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),
from bringing an action IFP while a prisoner. 1

Approximately ten

years after dismissal of these cases, in September 2025, Plaintiff
filed the identical application, styled as a “proposed order to

See Jeter v. Wiley, 14-CV-2724 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2014)
(dismissed for failure to comply with order directing
signature); Jeter v. Timberlake, 14-CV-3976 (S.D.N.Y. July 22,
2014) (dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2)(B)(i)-(ii));
Jeter v. Federal Reserve, 14-CV-4006 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2014)
(dismissed for failure to submit IFP application or fees); Jeter
v. Obama, 14-CV-5269 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2014) (dismissed under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)); Jeter v. DOC, 14-CV-5513 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 1, 2016) (complaint dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii)); Jeter v. United States, 14-CV-5995
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2014) (dismissed for failure to submit IFP
application or fees); Jeter v. United States, 14-CV-6217
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2014) (dismissed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)); Jeter v. CNYPC, 15-CV-6802 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.
7, 2015) (dismissed under § 1915(g)); Jeter v. Beyonce, 15-CV7076 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2015) (dismissed under Section 1915(g));
Jeter v. CNYPC, 15-CV-7040 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2015) (dismissed
under Section 1915(g)); Jeter v. Obama, 15-CV-7278 (S.D.N.Y.
Dec. 7, 2015) (dismissed under Section 1915(g)); Jeter v. Wiley,
14-CV-6221 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2015) (dismissed for failure to
comply with order). This motion was also filed in (1) 15-CV7518, ECF 5, but that action was transferred to another
district; and (2) 24-CV-7018 (LTS), ECF 9, which is assigned to
another Judge.
1

4

show cause for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
order,” in these cases. 2
In the motions, rather than seeking a temporary restraining
order or injunction, Plaintiff challenges the resolution of her
cases.

Accordingly,

the

Court

liberally

construes

these

submissions as motions for relief from a judgment or order under
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

For the

reasons set out below, the motions are DENIED.
I.

Discussion
Under Rule 60(b), a party may seek relief from a district

court’s order or judgment 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 other misconduct of 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 justifying relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
A motion based on the reasons articulated in Rules 60(b)(1),
(2), or (3) must be filed “no more than one year after the entry
of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.”

Fed. R.

Plaintiff filed three different versions of her motion.
Compare 14-CV-2724, ECF 10 (“Version 1”) with 14-CV-2724, ECF 11
(“Version 2”) and 15-CV-7278, ECF 7 (“Version 3”).
2

5

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

Plaintiff’s motions, filed approximately ten

years after judgment was entered in these cases, are untimely
insofar as the motions could be construed as being based on the
grounds set forth in subsections (1), (2), or (3).
Plaintiff does not show any reason why any of the judgments
are void, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), and does not show that any of
the judgments have been satisfied, released, or discharged, or are
based on earlier judgments that have been reversed or vacated,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5).

Plaintiff challenges the fact of her

“cases remaining closed without cause or having been heard” and
the fact that she has not had “discovery in each case.”
1 at 1.)

(Version

Plaintiff argues that Defendants “have evidence they

stole or used to commit crimes and torts against [Plaintiff],
America [and] Israel.”

(Id.; see also Version 3.)

She also raises

the issue of Defendants’ “stopping [her] days in court” and not
allowing her to “testify at [the] grand jury or know about it.”
(Version 1 at 1; Version 2 at 1.)

The Court has considered

Plaintiff’s arguments and, even under a liberal interpretation of
the motions, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that any of the grounds
listed in Rules 60(b)(4) or (5) apply.

Therefore, the motions

under these clauses are denied.
To the extent that Plaintiff seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(6),
the motions are also denied.

“[A] Rule 60(b)(6) motion must be

based upon some reason other than those stated in clauses (1)6

(5).”

United Airlines, Inc. v. Brien, 588 F.3d 158, 175 (2d Cir.

2009) (internal citations omitted).

A party moving under Rule

60(b)(6) cannot circumvent the one-year limitation applicable to
claims under clauses (1)-(3) by invoking the residual clause of
Rule 60(b).

Id.

motion

filed

was

A Rule 60(b)(6) motion must show both that the
within

a

“reasonable

time”

and

that

“‘extraordinary circumstances’ [exist] to warrant relief.” Old
Republic Ins. Co. v. Pac. Fin. Servs. of America, Inc., 301 F.3d
54, 59 (2d Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff’s motions, which were filed in approximately a
dozen cases that were closed a decade earlier, were not filed
within a reasonable time and do not demonstrate that extraordinary
circumstances exist to warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See
Ackermann

v.

United

States,

340

U.S.

193,

199-202

(1950).

Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motions are therefore denied.
Moreover, the motions lack any cognizable grounds for relief
and because of that are frivolous.

The Court cautions Plaintiff

that continuing to file frivolous and burdensome motions in closed
cases may result in an order directing the Clerk of Court not to
accept further documents for filing in Plaintiff’s closed cases.
II.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s

motions

are

DENIED.

The

Clerk

of

Court

is

respectfully directed to close the following motions: 14-CV-2724,
ECF 10-11; 14-CV-3976, ECF 10; 14-CV-4006, ECF 13; 14-CV-5269, ECF
7

14; 14-CV-5513, ECF 7; 14-CV-5995, ECF 7; 14-CV-6217, ECF 8; 15CV-6802, ECF 8; 15-CV-7040, ECF 10; 15-CV-7076, ECF 8; 15-CV-7278,
ECF 7-8; 14-CV-6221, ECF 10.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any
appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and
therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal.
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 11, 2025
New York, New York
LORETTA A. PRESKA
United States District Judge

8

See