Curtiss v. Federal, State, County, City Governments-USA Their Employees, Their Unions, Others Attached List of Defentants

Filing 8

ORDER denying 6 Motion for Reconsideration; denying as moot 7 Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Complaint. Plaintiff may not file any additional pleadings in this case and time to appeal has expired. Clerk directed to not accept any further filings from plaintiff in this case. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 5/23/11. (JHF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
RICHARD C. CURTISS,
Plaintiff,
-v-

11-CV-6006L
ORDER

FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, CITY
GOVERNMENTS-USA THEIR EMPLOYEES,
THEIR UNIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff

has

filed

a

motion

requesting

that

the

Court

reconsider its Orders dismissing the complaint with prejudice
(Docket No. 2) and denying as moot, plaintiff’s request that
summonses be issued for service of the complaint (Docket No. 5).
Plaintiff has also filed a motion requesting an extension of time
for service of the complaint (Docket No. 7). For the reasons
discussed below, plaintiff’s motions are denied.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) provides for relief from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding when, for example, there has been a mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, or newly discovered
evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in
time.

According to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals:
Rule 60(b) sets forth the grounds on which a
court, in its discretion, can rescind or amend
a final judgment or order.
... Properly
applied, Rule 60(b) strikes a balance between
serving the ends of justice and preserving the
finality of judgments. . . . In other words it

should be broadly construed to do "substantial
justice," . . . , yet final judgments should
not "be lightly reopened." . . . The Rule
may not be used as a substitute for a timely
appeal.
.
.
.
Since
60(b)
allows
extraordinary judicial relief, it is invoked
only
upon
a
showing
of
exceptional
circumstances.
Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986) (citations
omitted).
Nothing in plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration allows the
Court to grant relief from the Order dismissing the complaint with
prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).

The complaint was dismissed

due to the Court’s finding that the claims were factually frivolous
(Docket No. 2). Plaintiff does not demonstrate that there has been
a mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, or newly
discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been
discovered in time, nor does he show that his claim should be
reopened in the interest of justice.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s

motion for reconsideration is hereby denied.
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE COMPLAINT
This action was previously dismissed with prejudice by Order
dated March 2, 2011 (Docket No. 2).

Plaintiff then filed a motion

requesting that the Court issue summonses for service of the
complaint (Docket No. 4).
No. 5).

This request was denied as moot (Docket

Accordingly, plaintiff’s pending motion requesting an

extension of time to serve the complaint is also denied as moot, as
this action has already been dismissed with prejudice.
2

FUTURE FILINGS IN THIS CASE
Plaintiff was directed by the Court, in its Order dated May 9,
2011, to stop sending letters to District Court Judges and the
Clerk of the Court requesting issuance of the summonses because the
case had already been dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff is now

advised that he may not file any additional pleadings in this case
and that his time to appeal from this Court’s Order has expired.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1).

Further attempts to file any other

pleadings in this case may subject plaintiff to potential sanctions
pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The

Clerk of the Court is directed to not accept any further filings
from plaintiff in this case.
SO ORDERED.

s/ Michael A. Telesca
MICHAEL A. TELESCA
United States District Judge
Dated:

Rochester, New York
May 23, 2011

3