Jones v. Walker et al

Filing 8

ORDER: Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 6, 7) is denied. This action is closed. The Clerk of Court will only accept for filing documents that are directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. If Petit ioner files other documents that are frivolous or meritless, the Court will direct Petitioner to show cause why Petitioner should not be barred from filing further documents in this action. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) tha t any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. denying 7 Motion re: 7 MOTION UNDER 18:3582(c)(1)(A) FIRST STEP ACT, & 28:2244 & 28:2243 -FOR ORDER TO RELEASE FROM CUSTODY.. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 11/17/22) (rdz)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
RAFAEL ARDEN JONES,
Petitioner,
22-CV-0993 (LTS)

-againstSHARLISA WALKER, of RNDC; “JOHN”
CARTER, of RNDC,

ORDER

Respondents.
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Petitioner filed this action pro se. On March 3, 2022, the Court denied the petition as
barred by the Younger doctrine. On November 14, 2022, Petitioner filed a letter requesting
permission to “amend Defendants,” ECF No. 6, and a motion for an “order to release from
custody,” ECF No. 7, challenging the March 3, 2022, dismissal order.
The Court liberally construes this submission as a motion for reconsideration under Local
Civil Rule 6.3, a motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), and a motion for
relief from a judgment or order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) See Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101 (2d
Cir. 2010) (The solicitude afforded to pro se litigants takes a variety of forms, including liberal
construction of papers, “relaxation of the limitations on the amendment of pleadings,” leniency
in the enforcement of other procedural rules, and “deliberate, continuing efforts to ensure that a
pro se litigant understands what is required of him”) (citations omitted). After reviewing the
arguments in Petitioner’s submissions, the Court denies the motion.

DISCUSSION
A.

Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
A party who moves to alter or amend a judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) must

demonstrate that the Court overlooked “controlling law or factual matters” that had been
previously put before it. R.F.M.A.S., Inc. v. Mimi So, 640 F. Supp. 2d 506, 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
“Such motions must be narrowly construed and strictly applied in order to discourage litigants
from making repetitive arguments on issues that have been thoroughly considered by the court.”
Range Road Music, Inc. v. Music Sales Corp., 90 F. Supp. 2d 390, 391-92 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); see
also SimplexGrinnell LP v. Integrated Sys. & Power, Inc., 642 F. Supp. 2d 206 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)
(“A motion for reconsideration is not an invitation to parties to ‘treat the court’s initial decision
as the opening of a dialogue in which that party may then use such a motion to advance new
theories or adduce new evidence in response to the court’s ruling.’”) (internal quotation and
citations omitted).
A motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) “must be filed no later than 28 days after the
entry of the judgment.” Id.
Petitioner failed to file this motion within 28 days of the entry of judgment. The Court
therefore denies Petitioner’s motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
B.

Motion for Reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3
The standards governing Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3 are the same.

R.F.M.A.S., Inc., 640 F. Supp. 2d at 509 (discussion in the context of both Local Civil Rule 6.3
and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)). Thus, a party seeking reconsideration of any order under Local Civil
Rule 6.3 must demonstrate that the Court overlooked “controlling law or factual matters” that
had been previously put before it. R.F.M.A.S., Inc., 640 F. Supp. 2d at 509.

2

A motion brought under Local Civil Rule 6.3 must be filed within 14 days “after the entry
of the Court’s determination of the original motion, or in the case of a court order resulting in
a judgment, within . . . (14) days after the entry of the judgment.” Id.
Petitioner failed to file this motion within 14 days of the entry of judgment. The Court
therefore denies Petitioner’s motion under Local Civil Rule 6.3.
C.

Motion for Reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 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 reasons (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. Civ. P.
60(c)(1).
The Court has considered Petitioner’s arguments, and even under a liberal interpretation
of his motion, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that any of the grounds listed in the first five
clauses of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) apply. Therefore, the motion under any of these clauses is denied.
To the extent that Petitioner seeks relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), the motion is also
denied. “[A] Rule 60(b)(6) motion must be based upon some reason other than those stated in
clauses (1)-(5).” United Airlines, Inc. v. Brien, 588 F.3d 158, 175 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Smith v.
Sec’y of HHS, 776 F.2d 1330, 1333 (6th Cir. 1985)). A party moving under Rule 60(b)(6) cannot
circumvent the one-year limitation applicable to claims under clauses (1)-(3) by invoking the
3

residual clause (6) of Rule 60(b). Id. A Rule 60(b)(6) motion must show both that the motion was
filed 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).
Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant
relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). See Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199-202
(1950).
CONCLUSION
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 6, 7) is denied.
This action is closed. The Clerk of Court will only accept for filing documents that are
directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. If Petitioner files other
documents that are frivolous or meritless, the Court will direct Petitioner to show cause why
Petitioner should not be barred from filing further documents in this action.
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 in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an
appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 17, 2022
New York, New York
/s/ Laura Taylor Swain
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
Chief United States District Judge

4