Corley v. Farrell
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:18-cv-00763
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Corley v. Farrell, Judge McMahon denied Royce Corley’s reconsideration and judgment-relief motions and denied status to appeal without paying filing costs.
Royce Corley’s requests to change or set aside the earlier dismissal were denied. The case remains closed, and he was denied permission to appeal without paying appeal costs.
What happened
In Corley v. Farrell, Royce Corley, who represented himself, asked the court to undo its earlier dismissal of his lawsuit. He had sued his former employer, union-related defendants, and others over claims involving the Family and Medical Leave Act, labor laws, a union agreement, and New York law.
The court had previously dismissed this case because Corley was repeating claims resolved in a prior related proceeding. In his 328-page submission, Corley challenged that dismissal and sought relief under several court rules governing changes to judgments and relief from judgments.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied all of those requests. The court also closed the case, denied Corley permission to appeal without paying filing costs, and warned that future frivolous or meritless filings could lead to an order requiring him to explain why further filings should not be barred.
The detailed version
- Corley v. Farrell · No. 1:18-cv-00763
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 15, 2020
Background
Royce Corley, who was incarcerated and represented himself, sued defendants connected with his former employer and union. He asserted claims under the Labor Management Relations Act, the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and New York law. He alleged that his former employer violated the Family and Medical Leave Act and breached a collective bargaining agreement, and that the union breached its duty to represent him fairly.
The court had previously dismissed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), concluding that the claims were barred because they had already been asserted and adjudicated in a prior related proceeding. Corley later submitted a motion and memorandum with exhibits totaling 328 pages, challenging that dismissal.
Corley’s Motions
The court treated Corley’s submission as several motions. It construed the filing as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment, a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, and, alternatively, a motion under Rule 60(b) for relief from a judgment or order.
For the Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3 motions, Corley had to show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court found that he had not made that showing and denied both motions.
Under Rule 60(b), a court may provide relief from a judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct by an opposing party, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. The court held that Corley had not alleged facts supporting relief under Rule 60(b)(1) through (5). It also held that he had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). The court denied the Rule 60(b)(1)–(5) and Rule 60(b)(6) requests.
Ruling and Effect
The court denied Corley’s motion for reconsideration. The case was closed. The court warned that, if Corley filed additional frivolous or meritless documents in the action, it could require him to explain why he should not be barred from filing further documents. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying appeal costs.
This order addressed whether the earlier dismissal should be changed or set aside; it did not reconsider the underlying claims on their merits. It is therefore classified as a procedural order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.