Gross v. The City of New York

Background

Abraham Gross filed this action without a lawyer. On June 25, 2020, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because it duplicated Gross’s pending complaint in case number 20-CV-4340. The next day, Gross sent a letter challenging that dismissal.

Gross argued that the dismissal resulted from a clerical error. He said he had not intended to file the complaint in case 20-CV-4340, which he described as an incomplete draft lacking a cause of action, request for relief, and signature. He said he later submitted the final version under this docket number. He asked the court to reopen this case and also presented arguments and documents about the merits of his claims.

Motions and analysis

The court treated Gross’s letter as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment, a motion under Local Civil Rule 6.3 for reconsideration, and, alternatively, a motion under Rule 60(b) for relief from an order or judgment.

For the Rule 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3 motions, the court explained that Gross had to show that it had overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court found that he had not made that showing. It stated that Gross had submitted three versions of his complaint and that the court had dismissed the two actions with higher docket numbers as duplicative. The court had also told him that he could seek to add defendants, allegations, or claims by amending the complaint in the pending case under Rule 15.

The court concluded that Gross was not prejudiced by dismissal of the duplicate action because he could submit an amended complaint in case number 20-CV-4340 containing all his claims, information, and documents. It therefore denied the Rule 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3 motions.

The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b). It found that Gross had not shown any of the specified grounds for relief, such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or a void judgment, and had not shown extraordinary circumstances supporting relief for any other reason. Because he presented no legal or factual matter that called the dismissal into question, the court denied the request for reconsideration.

Disposition

Judge Colleen McMahon directed the clerk to mail Gross a copy of the order and record service on the docket. The order states that Gross’s request for reconsideration was denied and that all other pending matters were terminated. The clerk was directed to accept no further submissions under this docket number except papers directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.