Nunez v. Silber
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-03879
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
Nunez v. Silber: Judge Swain denied all motions seeking to undo prior dismissals, change a filing restriction, or extend the appeal deadline.
Javier Nunez, whose motions concerning the earlier rulings in Nunez I and the dismissal of Nunez II were denied; the existing filing restriction remained in place.
What happened
In Nunez v. Silber, Javier Nunez, who was representing himself, asked the court to undo or change earlier rulings in two related cases. Those rulings included a dismissal of his first case, a restriction requiring permission before certain future fee-free lawsuits, and the dismissal without prejudice of his second case.
The court denied all of Nunez’s requests. It denied reconsideration of the second case’s dismissal, denied relief from the earlier rulings because some requests were too late and none met the required standards, and denied the request to extend the appeal deadline because the deadline would begin after this order.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also warned that continued frivolous or otherwise meritless filings could lead to further filing restrictions. She certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Nunez v. Silber · No. 1:25-cv-03879
- Laura Swain
- June 18, 2025
Background
Javier Nunez represented himself in two related cases. In the earlier case, Nunez I, the court dismissed his action on October 24, 2023. The court then required him to explain why it should not restrict his ability to file future civil actions in that court without paying filing fees when those actions arose from his eviction and related events. On October 31, 2023, the court imposed that filing restriction. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later dismissed Nunez’s appeal as frivolous.
Nunez later filed Nunez II without first obtaining the permission required by the filing restriction. The court dismissed Nunez II without prejudice because he had not complied with the restriction. Nunez then filed two motions seeking relief under Rule 60(b), a rule that allows a court to provide relief from an order or judgment for specified reasons. The court understood the motions also to seek reconsideration under Rule 59(e), which permits a party to ask the court to correct a decision based on controlling law or facts it overlooked, and an extension of time to appeal under Rule 4(a)(5).
Rulings
The court denied Rule 59(e) relief concerning Nunez II. It concluded that Nunez had not shown that the court overlooked controlling legal decisions or factual matters when it dismissed that case for violating the filing restriction.
The court denied Rule 60(b)(1), (2), and (3) relief concerning the dismissal of Nunez I and the filing restriction as untimely. Those provisions generally concern mistake or excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, and fraud or misconduct, and motions based on them must be filed within one year. Nunez filed his motions in June 2025, more than one year after the relevant October 2023 rulings.
The court also denied Rule 60(b)(1) through (5) relief concerning the Nunez I rulings and the dismissal of Nunez II. It found that Nunez had not shown that any of those grounds applied. The court denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), the provision for other circumstances justifying relief, because Nunez had not shown extraordinary circumstances concerning either case.
The court denied as unnecessary Nunez’s request for more time to file a notice of appeal from Nunez II. Because his motions concerning Nunez II were filed within the applicable period, the 30-day appeal period would begin when this order was entered. The court’s conclusion states that it denied the motions. It also warned that continued frivolous or otherwise nonmeritorious filings in either case could lead to a requirement that Nunez obtain permission before filing future documents. Finally, the court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.