Celli v. Engelmayer
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-06535
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Celli v. Engelmayer, Judge Swain denied Celli’s Rule 60(b) motion because it was untimely and unsupported.
Lucio Celli’s request to reopen the dismissed action was denied; the order also denied fee-free appeal status.
What happened
In Celli v. Engelmayer, Lucio Celli asked the court to undo its October 2022 dismissal of his case. The court had dismissed the case because Celli did not pay the filing fee or submit the required applications and authorization.
The court denied Celli’s request for relief from the judgment. It found that requests based on mistake, newly discovered evidence, or misconduct were filed too late, and that Celli had not shown any other listed grounds for relief.
Judge Swain also denied relief under the rule’s provision for extraordinary circumstances, finding that Celli’s assertions were conclusory. The clerk was directed to terminate all motions, and the court denied fee-free appeal status after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Celli v. Engelmayer · No. 1:22-cv-06535
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 14, 2025
Background
Lucio Celli filed the underlying action without a lawyer. On October 12, 2022, the court dismissed the action because Celli had not paid the filing fees or filed an application to proceed without paying them and the required prisoner authorization. The clerk entered judgment that same day.
On June 19, 2025, Celli filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits a party to seek relief from a judgment or order for specified reasons. The motion challenged the October 12, 2022 dismissal.
Court’s Analysis
The court denied relief under Rule 60(b)(1) through (3) because those grounds—mistake or excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, and fraud or misconduct—must be raised within one year after the judgment or order. Celli filed his motion more than two and a half years after judgment was entered.
The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(4) and (5), concluding that Celli had not shown that the judgment was void, had been satisfied or discharged, was based on a reversed or vacated judgment, or should no longer apply prospectively.
The court separately denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which covers other reasons justifying relief. The court explained that this provision cannot be used to avoid the one-year deadline for grounds covered by Rule 60(b)(1) through (3). It also requires filing within a reasonable time and extraordinary circumstances. The court found that Celli’s motion consisted of conclusory assertions and did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances.
Disposition
The court denied Celli’s motion for reconsideration. The clerk was directed to terminate all motions in the action. 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 Celli permission to appeal without paying fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.