Felicie v. Hill
- Kimba Wood
- 1:24-cv-07447
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Bobby Felicie v. Octavia Hill, Judge Wood denied Felicie’s motion to reopen his dismissed case because he did not provide required evidence or good cause.
Bobby Felicie’s request to reopen the dismissed case was denied, leaving the civil judgment in place; the court also denied him permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.
What happened
In Bobby Felicie v. Octavia Hill, the court had previously dismissed Felicie’s complaint for failing to state a claim and because certain defendants were protected by legal immunities. The court gave him 30 days to file an amended complaint, but he did not do so on time. His later request for more time was docketed after the civil judgment was entered.
The court treated Felicie’s request as a motion to reopen the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule requires a party seeking relief from a final judgment to provide highly convincing evidence and a good reason for not acting sooner. Felicie’s letter only said that he wanted to file an amended complaint with new evidence and did not explain the evidence or why he missed the deadline.
The court denied the motion to reopen the case. Judge Wood also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Felicie’s permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Felicie v. Hill · No. 1:24-cv-07447
- Kimba Wood
- Nov. 10, 2025
Background
Bobby Felicie, representing himself and proceeding without paying the filing fee, moved to reopen his case. The court had previously dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted and based on judicial immunity, governmental attorney immunity, and Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court had allowed Felicie 30 days to file an amended complaint. He did not file one by the deadline.
Instead, Felicie sent a letter dated September 22, 2025, asking for more time to file an amended complaint. The letter was not received and entered on the docket until October 20, 2025—three days after the Clerk of Court entered a civil judgment dismissing the case.
Rule 60(b) Standard
Because Felicie did not identify a legal basis for his request, the court interpreted his filing liberally as a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Rule 60(b) permits relief from a final judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief.
The court explained that a party seeking this relief must act within a reasonable time and must present highly convincing evidence, show good cause for not acting sooner, and show that granting relief would not create undue hardship for the other parties. These requirements apply to people representing themselves as well as to represented litigants.
Court’s Reasoning
The court found that Felicie’s request was timely but insufficient. To justify reopening the case, his request for an extension needed to include an amended complaint presenting the allegedly new evidence and an explanation showing good cause for his failure to file on time. His letter merely stated that he wanted to refile an amended complaint with new evidence. It did not describe the evidence sufficiently for the court to determine whether it was highly convincing or whether it could have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence. Felicie also did not provide another reason excusing his late filing.
Disposition
The court denied Felicie’s motion to reopen his case. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.
Judge
The order was issued by Kimba M. Wood, United States District Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.