Gilmore v. Combs

Background

On May 16, 2025, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court dismissed DeWitt Gilmore’s claims for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from an event that allegedly occurred in 1996 because the claims were filed well beyond the applicable New York deadlines. The Court also considered possible grounds for pausing or extending those deadlines, including equitable estoppel and tolling based on duress, but found that none applied.

The earlier order certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Gilmore permission to appeal without paying the required fees. Gilmore was representing himself.

Motion for Relief from Judgment

Gilmore moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2), which permits relief from a final judgment based on newly discovered evidence that could not have been found earlier with reasonable diligence. The Court explained that such relief requires evidence that existed during the earlier proceeding, that the movant could not reasonably have discovered it, that it is admissible and important enough probably to change the result, and that it is not merely repetitive or intended only to challenge credibility. The Court also described relief under Rule 60(b) as extraordinary and available only in exceptional circumstances.

Gilmore said that the earlier opinion prompted him to contact Paulette Layne, his former spouse and the mother of his children. Layne provided a declaration describing a threatening phone call made in 1995 or 1996 by a man who identified himself as “Puffy.” Gilmore argued that the call showed direct intimidation and triggered equitable tolling of his tort claims.

The Court found that Gilmore did not justify his delay in contacting Layne. It also held that Layne’s account would not change the prior conclusion that Gilmore had not pleaded facts supporting equitable estoppel or tolling based on duress. In particular, Gilmore did not identify a continuing threat by the defendants that prevented him from suing during the nearly 30 years after the alleged call.

Appeal-Related Fee Status and Disposition

The Court declined to reverse its earlier denial of Gilmore’s permission to appeal without paying fees, stating that he had not shown that his claims had merit. The Court therefore denied Gilmore’s motion for relief from judgment. It separately certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and directed the clerk to close the motion at Docket Number 45.