Clervrein v. Cuomo
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-03625
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Manetirony Clervrain v. Andrew Mark Cuomo, Judge McMahon denied Clervrain’s Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from a prior filing restriction.
The ruling affected Manetirony Clervrain’s request to obtain relief from the prior order restricting his ability to file cases without prepaying filing fees while imprisoned, and his ability to appeal this order without prepaying those fees.
What happened
In Manetirony Clervrain v. Andrew Mark Cuomo, the court had previously barred Clervrain from filing future cases in that court without prepaying filing fees while imprisoned, unless he faced an immediate threat of serious physical injury.
Clervrain later filed a 209-page submission, which the court treated as a request to undo or obtain relief from that earlier order. The court found that he had not shown any of the reasons required for relief under the applicable rule.
Judge McMahon denied the motion. The court also stated that an appeal would not be considered to have been filed in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
The detailed version
- Clervrein v. Cuomo · No. 1:19-cv-03625
- Colleen McMahon
- May 21, 2020
Background
By an order dated May 30, 2019, the court barred Plaintiff from filing future actions in the Southern District of New York without prepaying filing fees while he was a prisoner, unless he was under an imminent threat of serious physical injury. Nearly one year later, Plaintiff filed a 209-page submission titled “motion for supplemental injustice adversely affected (‘The Ants’) and for related material for justification act (‘TAJA’).”
The court treated the submission as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits a party to seek relief from a judgment or order for specified reasons. The court also applied the more generous interpretation generally given to filings by people representing themselves.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that Plaintiff had not alleged facts showing that any of the grounds in Rule 60(b)(1) through (5) applied. Those grounds include mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, or satisfaction or changed circumstances affecting the judgment.
The court separately considered Rule 60(b)(6), which allows relief for another reason that justifies it. The court explained that this provision requires a reason different from those covered by clauses (1) through (5), a filing within a reasonable time, and extraordinary circumstances. It found that Plaintiff had not alleged facts demonstrating extraordinary circumstances.
Disposition
The court denied Plaintiff’s motion under Rule 60(b), including the request under Rule 60(b)(6). It directed the Clerk of Court to mail Plaintiff a copy of the order and record service on the docket. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees. Judge Colleen McMahon issued the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.