Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 24, 2020

Daniel v. Tucker

Judge
Louis Stanton
Docket
1:20-cv-02149
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Daniel v. Tucker, Judge Stanton dismissed the action, denied Rule 60(b) relief, and dismissed remaining claims against Tucker and Gutstein for failure to state a claim.

Who this affects

Otis A. Daniel received no relief under Rule 60(b), and his remaining claims against Robert S. Tucker, Esq., and Steven I. Gutstein were dismissed. The action was dismissed as a whole.

What happened

Otis A. Daniel was the plaintiff in an action against Robert S. Tucker, Esq., and Steven I. Gutstein. The judgment does not describe the facts behind his claims.

The court denied Daniel’s request for relief under Rule 60(b) from Judge Engelmayer’s July 19, 2018 order in an earlier related proceeding. It also dismissed Daniel’s remaining claims against Tucker and Gutstein under claim preclusion and for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Judge Louis L. Stanton ordered that the action be dismissed on April 24, 2020. The judgment also directed the court’s staff to mail Daniel a copy.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Daniel v. Tucker · No. 1:20-cv-02149
Judge
Louis Stanton
Date
Apr. 24, 2020

Background

Otis A. Daniel was the plaintiff, and Robert S. Tucker, Esq., and Steven I. Gutstein were the defendants. The judgment does not provide the underlying facts or explain the nature of Daniel’s claims.

Rulings

The court dismissed the action pursuant to an order issued on April 24, 2020.

The court denied Daniel any relief he sought under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure from Judge Engelmayer’s July 19, 2018 Corrected Opinion and Order in a prior related proceeding. Rule 60(b) provides a mechanism for seeking relief from a judgment or order.

The court dismissed Daniel’s remaining claims against Tucker and Gutstein under claim preclusion for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Claim preclusion is a rule that can bar a party from pursuing claims that were already resolved in an earlier proceeding. The judgment does not provide additional analysis explaining how that rule applied.

Disposition

The action was dismissed. The court’s chambers was ordered to mail Daniel a copy of the judgment. Judge Louis L. Stanton signed the judgment.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.