Fleming v. City of New York
- Katherine Failla
- 1:10-cv-03345
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Fleming v. Stradford, Judge Failla denied Robert Fleming’s late motion for a new trial after a jury verdict for the detectives.
Robert Fleming’s post-judgment motion was denied, leaving the jury’s verdict for Det. Wendell Stradford #3420 and Det. Steve Braccini #4305 in place. The filings at docket entries 250 and 253 were sealed from public view.
What happened
Fleming v. Stradford involved Robert Fleming’s claim that two detectives violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force. A jury found for the detectives in 2017, and the court entered judgment against Fleming in 2018.
Nearly seven years later, Fleming asked for a new trial. The court said his request came far too late under the rule governing new trials and also could not meet the deadline for relief from the judgment. The court separately explained that Fleming’s arguments did not justify a new trial because some concerned his criminal cases and others repeated challenges already rejected.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied Fleming’s motion. The clerk was directed to end the pending motions and seal the related filings because they contained sensitive information.
The detailed version
- Fleming v. City of New York · No. 1:10-cv-03345
- Katherine Failla
- May 9, 2025
Background
Robert Fleming sued two detectives under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state or local officials for violating constitutional rights. By the time of trial, only Fleming’s excessive-force claim remained. A jury trial took place in January 2017, and the jury found for the defendants. The court denied Fleming’s post-trial motions and entered judgment on February 22, 2018. Fleming appealed, but the appeal was dismissed on December 20, 2018, because he did not comply with directions from the appeals court.
Nearly seven years after judgment, Fleming moved for a new trial. The court noted that Fleming was representing himself and therefore read his filings liberally, while still requiring him to follow clear procedural rules and deadlines.
Analysis
Fleming invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. That rule requires a motion for a new trial after a jury trial to be filed within 28 days after judgment. The court held that Fleming’s motion was several years too late.
The court also considered whether Fleming’s filings could be treated as a request for relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b). The court explained that most grounds under that rule must be raised within one year, while the catchall provision in Rule 60(b)(6) requires filing within a reasonable time. The court found no evidence that the judgment was void or had been satisfied, and it found no newly discovered information or other explanation for Fleming’s delay. It therefore dismissed his request as untimely in its analysis.
The court further stated that, even if it considered the substance of Fleming’s arguments, they would not support a new trial. Some arguments assumed that the case had been dismissed before trial, even though it proceeded to a jury trial. Other arguments challenged aspects of Fleming’s criminal prosecutions, which did not provide a basis for a new trial in this civil case. Fleming also challenged pretrial evidentiary rulings, but those issues had already been addressed before trial and in the court’s earlier post-trial decision. The court declined to revisit them.
Disposition
Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied Fleming’s motion for a new trial. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions at docket entries 250 and 253 and seal those entries so that they would be viewable only by the court and the parties. The opinion does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.