McRae v. Lee et al
Filing
55
DECISION AND ORDER denying without prejudice 54 Plaintiff's letter request. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 5/10/2019. A copy of the NEF and this order were sent to the return address listed on Plaintiff's envelope.(MFM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TROY MCRAE,
Plaintiff,
Case # 15-CV-6009-FPG
v.
DR. LEE, et al.,
Defendants.
TROY MCRAE,
Plaintiff,
Case # 17-CV-6776-FPG
v.
C.O. T. FLEMING, et al.,
Defendants.
TROY MCRAE,
Plaintiff,
Case # 18-CV-6469-FPG
v.
P.O. PAGENELLO, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________________________
TROY MCRAE,
Plaintiff,
Case # 18-CV-6744-FPG
v.
DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________________________
DECISION AND ORDER
In a letter dated May 1, 2019, pro se Plaintiff Troy McRae asks the Court to “reopen [his]
cases that were administratively closed.” McRae v. Pagenello, No. 18-CV-6469, ECF No. 8 at 1.
Previously, on November 27, 2018, this Court dismissed and closed four of McRae’s cases: (1)
McRae v. Pagenello, No. 18-CV-6469; (2) McRae v. Lee, No. 15-CV-6009; (3) McRae v. Fleming,
1
No. 17-CV-6776; (4) McRae v. Department of Homeland Security, No. 18-CV-6744. 1 The Court
took this action in response to McRae’s prior letter, in which he requested that the Court
“administratively close all [his] cases.” McRae v. Pagenello, No. 18-CV-6469, ECF No. 4 at 1.
Construing his letter request as a motion “seeking voluntary dismissal of his cases pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41,” the Court dismissed the cases without prejudice and directed
the Clerk of Court to close them. ECF No. 5 at 2. Judgment has since been entered in all four
cases. Furthermore, McRae has been removed from the United States.
At this time, McRae is not entitled to relief. As a legal matter, because McRae’s cases
have been dismissed and judgment entered, he is not entitled to reinstate his cases as of right.
“Although a voluntary dismissal without prejudice . . . does not have preclusive effect on later
claims, such a dismissal is a final judgment in the sense that it ends the pending action.” Devino
v. Duncan, 215 F. Supp. 2d 414, 417 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Therefore, to reinstate his cases, McRae
must vacate the judgments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See id. (“[A] Rule 60(b)
motion may be used as a vehicle to reinstate a petition that was voluntarily dismissed.”); Walker
v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, No. 94 Civ. 5591, 1995 WL 625689, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 1995).
Rule 60(b) sets forth several reasons that may justify vacating a final judgment, including mistake
or inadvertence, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (2), (3), (6). Because McRae develops no argument as to why his cases should
be reopened under Rule 60(b), however, the Court cannot assess his entitlement to relief.
On a more practical level, it is unclear how McRae can meaningfully prosecute these cases
now that he has been removed from the United States. That is, McRae does not explain how he
will be able to respond to discovery, present his claims and testify at trial, or otherwise participate
1
In his May 1, 2019 letter, McRae also references a case by Docket Number 17-CV-1291, but that does
not appear to be one of his cases.
2
in the actions. As McRae’s recent letter shows, this is not a speculative concern: McRae waited
over five months since his removal to seek this relief, and he states that his “only means of
communication is through [his] sister,” who appears to live in the United States. 2 ECF No. 8 at 12. Courts have dismissed actions in similar circumstances—namely, where a plaintiff is unable to
prosecute his case from abroad. See, e.g., Kuar v. Mawn, No. 08-CV-4401, 2012 WL 3808620, at
*6 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2012) (collecting cases).
While McRae is not precluded from making these showings, his present letter fails to do
so, and he is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, McRae’s letter request is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 10, 2019
Rochester, New York
______________________________________
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
2
There is no indication that McRae’s sister is an attorney who could represent him in his cases. See Guest
v. Hansen, 603 F.3d 15, 20 (2d Cir. 2010) (“A person who has not been admitted to the practice of law may
not represent anybody other than himself . . . This rule exists to serve not only the interests of the represented
party but also the interests of the adversaries and the court, because the entire judicial system benefits from
the professional knowledge of practicing attorneys.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
3
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?