Sposato v. Serrano

Background

Linda Sposato filed the complaint without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying filing fees. The case concerned a Westchester County foreclosure matter. The court first dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but allowed Sposato to file an amended complaint. On September 12, 2025, the court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted and on immunity grounds.

The earlier dismissal rested on several grounds described in this order: Sposato could not bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the private defendants; the two judges named as defendants were immune from suit; the allegations did not state plausible claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute; Sposato could not bring independent claims under state or federal criminal laws; the court could not grant the requested relief concerning ongoing or final state-court proceedings because of abstention and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; the court lacked diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction over the state-law claims; and it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims because federal-question jurisdiction was absent.

Motions and analysis

Sposato later filed a motion to halt a foreclosure auction and a motion seeking federal intervention. Her requested relief included vacating two bankruptcy-court orders as void, vacating state-court orders allegedly obtained through fraud on the court, enjoining foreclosure auctions scheduled for September 25 and September 30, 2025, and dismissing the foreclosure proceedings with prejudice. She also filed a notice of appeal and asked to proceed without paying filing costs on appeal.

The court liberally construed the auction and intervention motions as requests under three authorities: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment; Local Civil Rule 6.3, which governs reconsideration in the Southern District of New York; and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows relief from a judgment or order for specified reasons such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or a void judgment.

The court denied the Rule 59(e) motion because Sposato did not show that the court had overlooked controlling law or facts. It denied reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 for the same reason. It denied relief under Rule 60(b), concluding that Sposato had not shown that any of the first five listed grounds applied and had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6).

Ruling and effect

The court denied Sposato’s motion for reconsideration, identified as docket entries 47 and 49. It separately denied her request to proceed without paying filing costs on appeal, while stating that she could seek permission from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit after the appeal was transmitted. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all motions. The order stated that the matter was closed and warned that continued filings could lead to an order requiring Sposato to explain why she should not be barred from continuing to file documents in the case.