Majied v. New York City Department of Education et al

Filing 46

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiff's motion is denied with prejudice. This Court certifies, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Memorandum Opinion and Order would not be taken in goo d faith, and in forma pauperis status is thus denied. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/23/20) (yv) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

Case 1:16-cv-05731-JMF Document 46 Filed 04/23/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
AMINAH L. MAJIED,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION :
et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

16-CV-57

(JMF)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

JESSE M. FURMAN, District Judge:
On February 11, 2020, pro se Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to vacate the Court’s
judgment and order entered on January 10, 2018, and January 8, 2018, respectively. See ECF
No. 41 (“Mot.”); see also ECF Nos. 39 & 40. Defendants oppose the motion. See ECF No. 44.
Although Plaintiff was invited to file a reply, see ECF No. 44, she did not.
For the reasons set forth in Defendants’ letter, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. In
particular, Plaintiff’s motion — liberally construed as a motion pursuant to Rule 60 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and filed more than two years after the Court granted
Defendants’ motions to dismiss and sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff’s remaining claims — is
untimely. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (“A [motion to vacate] must be made within a reasonable
time,” and for the reasons cited in Plaintiff’s motion, “no more than a year after the entry of
judgment or order”). Even if the motion were timely filed, Plaintiff does not provide a
compelling reason for the Court to overturn its previous orders or disrupt the finality of its
judgment. Indeed, Plaintiff’s motion is devoid of any indication that she possesses new,
previously undiscoverable facts that would support a new filing; the facts that she does cite

Case 1:16-cv-05731-JMF Document 46 Filed 04/23/20 Page 2 of 2