Spencer Nimham El Dey v. DOC
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-04027
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Spencer Nimham El Dey v. DOC, Judge Swain denied relief from the prior dismissal because the request was late and lacked qualifying grounds.
The ruling affected Abdullah Spencer Nimham El Dey’s request to reopen or obtain relief from the July 14, 2022 dismissal, and his ability to appeal that ruling without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Spencer Nimham El Dey v. DOC, Abdullah Spencer Nimham El Dey asked the court to reconsider its July 2022 order and judgment dismissing his action. He filed that request in March 2024, after the case had already been dismissed.
The court treated the request as one seeking relief under Rule 60(b), a rule that allows a court to undo an order or judgment for specific reasons. The court found the request too late for several possible grounds and found that his medical conditions did not establish a qualifying reason for relief. It denied the motion.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Spencer Nimham El Dey v. DOC · No. 1:22-cv-04027
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 2, 2025
Background
The court had dismissed Abdullah Spencer Nimham El Dey’s action by an order and judgment entered on July 14, 2022. On March 14, 2024, he filed a document titled a “motion for reconsideration.” The court interpreted that filing as a motion for relief from the earlier order or judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The opinion states that the action was filed while Plaintiff was incarcerated, but that he was no longer incarcerated when he filed the motion.
Rule 60(b) grounds
Rule 60(b) permits relief from an order or judgment for specified reasons, including mistake or excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct by an opposing party, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. Motions based on the first three grounds must be filed within one year after the order or judgment.
The judgment here was entered on July 14, 2022, and Plaintiff filed his motion one year and eight months later. The court therefore denied the motion as untimely to the extent it relied on the first three Rule 60(b) grounds. The court also considered the arguments under a liberal interpretation of the filing and concluded that Plaintiff had not shown that any of the grounds in Rule 60(b)(1) through (5) applied. Plaintiff attributed his delay to ongoing medical conditions. The court stated that it understood his medical situation may have complicated his litigation, but concluded that this did not provide a basis for relief under those provisions.
Rule 60(b)(6) allows relief for another reason not covered by the first five provisions, but requires a filing within a reasonable time and extraordinary circumstances warranting relief. Even assuming that Plaintiff’s motion was filed within a reasonable time, the court found that he had not shown extraordinary circumstances.
Disposition
The court construed Plaintiff’s filing as a Rule 60(b) motion and denied the motion. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith, and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.