James v. Payne et al
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING 13 Motion to re-open case. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 9/25/17. A copy of the Decision and Order and NEF have been mailed to the pro se Plaintiff. (SCE)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case # 11-CV-6059-FPG
C.O. BRANDON L. PAYNE,
C.O. KYLE R. KENNEDY,
C. O. RUSSELL W. AYERS,
SGT. M. SMITH, PATRICK D. BURNS,
C.O. DAVID M. GLEASON,
C.O. ERIC D. SEYMOUR and
ADSS. CAPT LAMANND,
DECISION AND ORDER
By Decision and Order dated March 28, 2013, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint based on the failure to exhaust administrative remedies (ECF No.
10), and the Clerk of Court entered Judgment the same day. ECF No. 11.
Over four years later, by letter dated June 19, 2017 and filed with the Court on July 26,
2017 (ECF No. 13), Plaintiff requests that the Court reinstate his original Complaint. The
application is denied.
In the March 28, 2013 Decision and Order, the Court dismissed the Complaint “without
prejudice to refile if and when Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies.” ECF No. 10
at 4. If Plaintiff wishes to re-file his original action, he must file a new Complaint with the Clerk
of Court, and it will proceed in the ordinary course. However, Plaintiff should be aware that his
new Complaint may be barred by applicable statute of limitations, given the passage of several
To the extent that Plaintiff’s Motion could be read as seeking relief from final judgment
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, that application is denied Under that rule, the Court could grant relief
from a final judgment under five delineated reasons (none of which apply here), or for “any other
reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(5), and (6). A motion made under subdivision
(6) must be made “within a reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). A motion made in excess
of four years later does not satisfy the reasonable time standard, and in any event, the motion
provides no basis upon which to vacate the Court’s prior judgment.
For all of these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 13), whether construed as one to reopen the case, or for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, is DENIED. As stated in the
Court’s original Order, Plaintiff may re-file his case “if and when [he] has exhausted his
administrative remedies.” The Court expresses no opinion as to whether any such Complaint
would be timely, or whether it may be barred under other legal principles.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 25, 2017
Rochester, New York
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
United States District Court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?