Wright v. Whitesell
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:17-cv-09054
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Wright v. Whitesell, Judge McMahon denied Wright’s second motion seeking to undo the earlier dismissal of his case.
Troy Wright’s request to undo the earlier dismissal was denied; the order also denied him permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
What happened
In Wright v. Whitesell, Troy Wright asked the court to undo an earlier order that dismissed his claims against several defendants and sent his state-law claims to another forum. Wright filed the case without a lawyer.
The court said the new request repeated arguments from an earlier request and was filed more than a year after the dismissal. It found no valid reason to undo the order under the applicable rules.
Judge McMahon denied the motion for reconsideration and denied Wright permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
The detailed version
- Wright v. Whitesell · No. 1:17-cv-09054
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 12, 2019
Background
Troy Wright filed this action without a lawyer. On February 26, 2018, the court dismissed Wright’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dutchess County District Attorney Edward F. Whitesell, Assistant District Attorney Bridget Stellar, and Dutchess County Court Clerk Wayne R. Witherwax. The court also declined to hear Wright’s state-law claims against his former attorney and dismissed those claims without prejudice, meaning Wright could refile them in an appropriate forum.
Wright later asked the court to reconsider the February 2018 dismissal. The court treated that request as a motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and denied it on June 28, 2019. A few days later, Wright filed another Rule 60(b) motion challenging the same dismissal order.
Court’s Analysis
Rule 60(b) allows a court to provide relief from an order or judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct by an opposing party, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or other extraordinary circumstances. Motions based on mistake, newly discovered evidence, or misconduct must be filed within one year of the challenged order.
The court held that Wright’s new motion was filed more than one year after the February 2018 dismissal, so he could not obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(1), (2), or (3). The court also stated that, even if the motion had been timely, Wright had not provided a basis for relief under those provisions.
The court rejected relief under Rule 60(b)(4) and (5) because Wright had not alleged facts showing that either provision applied. It also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which applies only for reasons different from those listed in Rule 60(b)(1) through (5). The court explained that Wright had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6), even assuming that he filed the motion within a reasonable time.
Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon denied Wright’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk was directed to mail Wright a copy of the order and record service on the docket. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Wright permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.