Thatcher v. LaManna
- Andrew Carter
- 1:17-cv-04540
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Thatcher v. LaManna, Judge Carter denied Thatcher’s request to reopen his previously dismissed challenge to his state conviction.
Dante Thatcher’s request to reopen his previously dismissed petition was denied; the opinion leaves in place the earlier dismissal with prejudice. Jamie LaManna opposed the request.
What happened
In Thatcher v. LaManna, Dante Thatcher, representing himself, asked the court to reopen his challenge to a state conviction for two weapons-possession offenses. The court had dismissed that challenge as filed too late and had dismissed it with prejudice.
Thatcher argued that the court should provide relief because it had failed to mail him a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, which prevented him from objecting. He sought relief under two parts of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, which allows a court to provide relief from a judgment in limited circumstances.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied the motion. He found that the mailing error was procedural, did not change the outcome, and had been addressed by giving Thatcher an opportunity to seek reconsideration, which Thatcher did not use. The court also found no extraordinary circumstances justifying relief under the other part of Rule 60.
The detailed version
- Thatcher v. LaManna · No. 1:17-cv-04540
- Andrew Carter
- Mar. 4, 2020
Background
Dante Thatcher, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition challenging his state-court conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Jamie LaManna moved to dismiss the petition as time-barred. The court referred that motion to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker, who recommended dismissal as untimely.
The court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the petition with prejudice. Thatcher later told the court that he had not received the report and recommendation. The court gave him permission to file a motion for reconsideration by June 5, 2018, but he did not file one. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and the Second Circuit denied his appeal.
Approximately six months later, Thatcher filed the motion addressed in this opinion. He sought relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6).
Rule 60(b)(1)
Rule 60(b)(1) permits relief from a judgment for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. The court explained that a mistake may be legal or factual, but the moving party must show a material mistake that changed the outcome.
Thatcher argued that the court’s failure to mail Judge Parker’s report was a sufficient mistake because it prevented him from filing objections. The court agreed that it had erred by failing to mail the report, but concluded that the error was procedural rather than a legal or factual mistake and did not change the outcome of the judgment. The court also concluded that any prejudice was addressed by giving Thatcher an opportunity to seek reconsideration, which he did not use.
Rule 60(b)(6)
Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief for any other reason that justifies relief, but requires extraordinary circumstances. The court noted that such circumstances rarely exist in this setting and that a Rule 60 motion cannot substitute for an appeal. A claim that the court made a legal error, standing alone, is not enough.
The court found that Thatcher had not shown extraordinary circumstances. Although the failure to mail the report prevented him from filing objections, the court had provided another opportunity to seek reconsideration, and Thatcher had appealed the judgment to the Second Circuit, which denied the appeal.
Disposition
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied Thatcher’s motion for relief from judgment. The opinion does not alter the earlier order dismissing Thatcher’s petition with prejudice.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.