Chavez v. Rudes
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:18-cv-09933
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chavez v. Rudes, Judge McMahon denied Chavez’s motion for relief from the earlier dismissal as frivolous.
Chavez’s request to reopen or obtain relief from the prior dismissal was denied; the opinion does not describe any separate relief awarded to or against Scott M. Rudes.
What happened
In Chavez v. Rudes, the court had previously dismissed Chavez’s complaint because it duplicated an earlier case pending in Texas. An appeals court later dismissed Chavez’s appeal, finding no arguable basis in law or fact.
Chavez then filed a one-page motion asking the court to reopen the matter or provide relief, referring to the Texas judge’s recusal and other concerns. The court treated the filing as a request for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
Judge Colleen McMahon denied the motion as frivolous because Chavez did not allege facts showing that any Rule 60(b) ground or extraordinary circumstance applied. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Chavez v. Rudes · No. 1:18-cv-09933
- Colleen McMahon
- Apr. 28, 2020
Background
The court had dismissed Chavez’s complaint by an order dated November 30, 2018, because it was duplicative of an earlier case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Chavez appealed, but on August 29, 2019, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because it lacked an arguable basis in law or fact.
On January 10, 2020, Chavez filed a one-page “emergent motion for reopen/relief.” The filing referred to the recusal of the Texas judge and stated that Chavez had been subjected to an unconsensual “tit-for-tat.” Chavez asked the court for help and provided information about current whereabouts.
Motion and Analysis
The court liberally construed the filing as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits a court to provide relief from a judgment or order in specified circumstances. The court denied the motion as frivolous. It concluded that, even under a liberal interpretation, Chavez had not alleged facts showing that any Rule 60(b) ground applied. The court also found no facts demonstrating the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6), the provision allowing relief for extraordinary circumstances not covered by the other listed grounds.
Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon denied Chavez’s motion for reconsideration. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the court’s judgment would not be taken in good faith. The clerk was directed to mail Chavez a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.