Perez v. The of Company Hospital Presbyterian
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:17-cv-09649
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Juona Perez v. The of Company Hospital, Judge McMahon denied Perez’s Rule 60(b) motion because it was late and lacked grounds to reopen the judgment.
Juona Perez’s request to reopen the June 12, 2018 dismissal was denied, and further filings in the district court under this docket number were restricted as stated in the order.
What happened
In Juona Perez v. The of Company Hospital Presbyterian The Allied Hospital, Juona Perez asked for unspecified relief after the court had dismissed her case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court treated her filing as a request to reopen that earlier judgment under Rule 60(b), a federal rule allowing relief from a judgment in limited circumstances.
The court denied the motion. It ruled that any request based on mistake, newly discovered evidence, or misconduct was filed more than one year after the judgment and was therefore too late. It also found that Perez had not shown any other listed reason for relief or the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under the rule’s final provision.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the Clerk of Court to accept no further submissions from Perez in this case, except papers directed to the Court of Appeals. The court also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Perez v. The of Company Hospital Presbyterian · No. 1:17-cv-09649
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 15, 2019
Background
Juona Perez, appearing without a lawyer, filed a motion seeking unspecified relief. The court construed it as a motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits a party to seek relief from a judgment or order for specified reasons.
The court had previously allowed Perez to file an amended complaint clearly asserting state-law claims and alleging facts showing that the claims met the required amount for federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ diversity of citizenship. The court warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Perez did not file an amended complaint, so the court dismissed the action by order and judgment entered June 12, 2018.
Perez appealed, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal effective January 31, 2019, because Perez had not sought fee-waiver status for the appeal or paid the required fees. Perez filed the present motion on August 9, 2019.
Analysis
Rule 60(b)(1), (2), and (3) concern mistake or excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, and fraud or misconduct by an opposing party. A motion based on one of those grounds must be filed within one year after entry of the challenged judgment. Because Perez filed her motion more than one year after the June 12, 2018 judgment, the court denied relief under those provisions as time-barred.
The court also concluded that Perez had not alleged facts showing that any of the grounds in Rule 60(b)(1) through (5) applied. Rule 60(b)(6), which allows relief for another reason justifying relief, requires a motion filed within a reasonable time and extraordinary circumstances. The court found that Perez had not alleged facts demonstrating extraordinary circumstances.
Disposition
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon denied the Rule 60(b) motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Perez a copy of the order and record service on the docket. The Clerk was also directed to accept no further submissions from Perez under this docket number, except papers directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.