Shabazz v. Diggs
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-09084
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Shabazz v. Diggs, Judge Swain denied Shabazz’s motion to reopen the dismissed case because it was late and lacked required grounds.
Danny Amen Valentine Shabazz, who filed the motion without a lawyer; the action remains closed, and permission to appeal without paying court fees was denied.
What happened
In Shabazz v. Diggs, Danny Amen Valentine Shabazz, representing himself, asked the court to review its earlier dismissal of his complaint. The court had dismissed the complaint for failing to state a claim, allowed 30 days to file an amended complaint, and entered judgment after Shabazz did not amend it. More than a year later, he filed an amended complaint and a review motion.
The court treated the review motion as a request for relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). It denied relief under the rule’s first three grounds because the request was filed more than one year after judgment. It also found that Shabazz had not shown that the grounds for the rule’s fourth, fifth, or sixth provisions applied, including the extraordinary circumstances required for the sixth provision.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion for reconsideration, directed the Clerk to terminate all motions, and closed the action. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying court fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Shabazz v. Diggs · No. 1:23-cv-09084
- Laura Swain
- May 6, 2025
Background
Danny Amen Valentine Shabazz filed the action without a lawyer. On January 3, 2024, the court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted and gave him 30 days to file an amended complaint. He did not file one, and the Clerk entered judgment on February 26, 2024.
On April 9, 2025, Shabazz filed an amended complaint. On April 23, 2025, he filed a “Motion for Review of the Court’s Order of Dismissal.” The court interpreted that filing as a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
Rule 60(b) analysis
Rule 60(b) lists several grounds for relief from a judgment or order. Grounds based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or opposing-party misconduct must be raised within one year after the judgment or order.
The court denied the motion under those first three grounds as untimely because both Shabazz’s amended complaint and motion were filed more than a year after the February 26, 2024 judgment.
The court also considered the motion under the rule’s fourth and fifth grounds. It concluded that Shabazz had not shown that the judgment was void, had been satisfied or discharged, was based on a reversed or vacated earlier judgment, or otherwise met those provisions. The court therefore denied relief under either ground.
Finally, the court denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which permits relief for another reason justifying it but cannot be used to avoid the one-year limit for the first three grounds. A motion under this provision must be filed within a reasonable time and must show extraordinary circumstances. The court found that Shabazz had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting relief.
Disposition
The court denied Shabazz’s motion for reconsideration. It directed the Clerk to terminate all motions and stated that the action was closed. The court 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 appeal without paying court fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.