Witherspoon v. United States
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:17-cv-09521
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Witherspoon v. United States, Judge McMahon denied Witherspoon’s request to reopen the dismissed case, finding no basis for relief under Rule 60(b).
Desmond M. Witherspoon’s motion for reconsideration was denied, his case remained closed, and the court limited what further documents it would accept in the action.
What happened
In Witherspoon v. United States, Desmond M. Witherspoon, representing himself, asked the court to reconsider its 2017 dismissal of his complaint. That dismissal had barred him from filing new actions without first getting the court’s permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
Witherspoon argued that the court had relied on the wrong code section. The court treated his filing as a request for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows a court to correct or set aside an order for specified reasons. The court found that he had not shown that any of those reasons applied, including the provision for extraordinary circumstances.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon denied the motion for reconsideration and kept the case closed. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, directed the Clerk to mail the order to Witherspoon, and stated that further meritless filings could lead to an order requiring him to explain why additional filings should not be barred.
The detailed version
- Witherspoon v. United States · No. 1:17-cv-09521
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 12, 2019
Background
Desmond M. Witherspoon filed the action without a lawyer. On December 8, 2017, the court dismissed his complaint because he was barred from filing a new action without first obtaining the court’s permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. On August 29, 2019, nearly two years later, Witherspoon filed a motion for reconsideration challenging the 2017 dismissal.
Motion and analysis
The court treated the filing as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits relief from a judgment or order for specified reasons. Witherspoon argued that the court had relied on the wrong code section.
The court ruled that, even reading the motion broadly, Witherspoon had not alleged facts showing that any of the first five grounds under Rule 60(b) applied. Those grounds include mistake or excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct by the opposing party, a void judgment, and satisfaction or other changes affecting the judgment. The court therefore denied relief under those provisions.
The court separately considered Rule 60(b)(6), the provision allowing relief for another reason that justifies it. It explained that this provision requires both filing within a reasonable time and extraordinary circumstances. The court concluded that Witherspoon had not alleged facts demonstrating extraordinary circumstances and denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6) as well.
Ruling and case status
Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon denied Witherspoon’s motion for reconsideration. The case under Docket No. 17-CV-9521 was closed. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Witherspoon and record service on the docket. The court stated that it would accept only documents directed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and that, if Witherspoon filed other frivolous or meritless documents, it could require him to explain why he should not be barred from filing further documents in the action.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.