Lewis v. Newburgh Nissan Car Dealership
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:04-cv-00562
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Lewis v. Newburgh Nissan, Judge Schofield denied Regina Lewis’s motion to reopen a 2005 judgment and warned about future filings.
Regina Lewis, who sought to reopen the 2005 judgment, and Newburgh Nissan North America, the opposing defendant. The order also warned that future frivolous filings by Lewis could lead to sanctions and filing restrictions.
What happened
Regina Lewis asked the court to reopen a judgment entered in 2005 in her case against Newburgh Nissan North America. She filed the motion in late 2019, years after the judgment.
Lewis argued that the earlier court had abused its discretion, failed to consider whether she was competent to proceed, and failed to consider appointing a guardian. She also relied on alleged newly discovered evidence, constitutional rights, and her right to represent herself without a lawyer.
Judge Schofield denied the motion, stating that a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 could not be brought more than one year after judgment. The court also warned that another frivolous filing could lead to sanctions and a restriction on future filings, and directed the clerk to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Lewis v. Newburgh Nissan Car Dealership · No. 1:04-cv-00562
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 9, 2020
Background
The court considered Lewis’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), which permits relief from a final judgment for another reason that justifies relief. The underlying judgment was entered in 2005. The opinion states that Lewis filed the present motion in late 2019.
The opinion identifies Lewis as the plaintiff and Newburgh Nissan North America as the defendant. Lewis proceeded without a lawyer. She argued that the district court had abused its discretion in 2005 by making a merits determination and dismissing her complaint with prejudice. She also argued that the court should have conducted an inquiry into her competency and whether appointing a guardian ad litem—a person appointed to represent someone unable to protect their own interests—was appropriate.
Lewis further asserted that exceptional circumstances and newly discovered evidence supported relief. She cited arguments concerning due process, constitutional rights, the statutory right to appear without a lawyer, and the treatment of filings by people representing themselves.
Court’s reasoning
The court stated that a Rule 60 motion must be brought “no more than a year after the entry of the judgment.” Because judgment was entered in 2005 and Lewis filed the motion many years later, the court denied the motion. The opinion does not describe a separate merits analysis of Lewis’s constitutional or competency arguments before denying the motion.
The court also stated that Lewis had previously been warned that continued successive frivolous filings could result in sanctions and a bar on filing documents in the case. It referred to a recent Second Circuit mandate warning that continued frivolous, duplicative, vexatious, or clearly meritless appeals, motions, or other papers could result in sanctions, including a requirement to obtain permission before making further submissions. The opinion also states that the district court had previously imposed a three-strikes order against Lewis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Disposition
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the Rule 60 motion. The court described the warning as Lewis’s final warning and stated that the next frivolous filing would result in sanctions. It directed the clerk to close Docket Number 110. The order did not state that the Rule 60 motion was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.