James v. John Jay College-CUNY
- Denise Cote
- 1:18-cv-01777
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Terrell James v. CUNY/John Jay College, Judge Cote denied James’s Rule 60 motion to vacate the dismissal, finding no exceptional circumstances from counsel’s neglect.
Terrell James’s request to reopen the previously dismissed action was denied; the defendants remained protected by the November 12, 2019 dismissal.
What happened
In Terrell James v. CUNY/John Jay College, the court had dismissed James’s action after his attorney failed to follow court procedures and respond to court orders. After the Court of Appeals sent the matter back, the court dismissed it again on November 12, 2019, for failure to diligently prosecute the case.
James later represented himself and asked the court to reopen the case under Rule 60. He said his former attorney, Lennox Hinds, withheld information, misled him about the case’s status, and failed to tell him promptly about the earlier dismissal. James wanted to pursue his claims with new counsel.
Judge Denise Cote denied the motion on October 21, 2020. She ruled that attorney neglect did not meet the demanding standard for relief, that the request effectively sought to avoid the deadline for appealing the 2019 dismissal, and that James had not shown exceptional circumstances.
The detailed version
- James v. John Jay College-CUNY · No. 1:18-cv-01777
- Denise Cote
- Oct. 21, 2020
Background
Terrell James attempted to file this action on February 27, 2018, represented by attorney Lennox Hinds. The opinion states that Hinds failed to follow court procedures and did not timely respond to court orders. On November 20, 2018, the action was dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court denied Hinds’s request to reinstate the case.
James appealed. After the case was sent back from the Court of Appeals, the court explained in a November 12, 2019 order why the action had been dismissed and again dismissed it for James’s failure to diligently prosecute the matter. The opinion states that no appeal was taken from that order. It also refers to a prior related proceeding filed while the appeal was pending, but that proceeding is not the subject of this order.
Rule 60 Motion
On October 15, 2020, James, then proceeding without a lawyer, moved under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to vacate the November 12, 2019 dismissal. Rule 60(b) allows relief from a final judgment or order in limited circumstances, including mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, or another reason justifying relief.
James attributed the failure to prosecute to Hinds. He asserted that Hinds withheld information and misled him about the case, including by failing to tell him about the November 2018 dismissal until December 2018 and mischaracterizing the reason for that dismissal. James stated that he did not learn of Hinds’s neglect until more than a year after the November 2018 dismissal. The opinion also notes that an unnamed attorney helped prepare the motion.
Court’s Analysis
The court identified several problems with the request. It stated that a party ordinarily is bound by decisions made by the party’s lawyer, including the lawyer’s mistakes. It also concluded that the motion effectively sought to excuse the failure to file a timely appeal from the November 12, 2019 dismissal. The court stated that the applicable appeal deadlines are strictly enforced.
The court further explained that Rule 60 relief is extraordinary and requires exceptional circumstances. Although attorney disappearance or mental illness may sometimes support relief when a party has diligently tried to contact the lawyer, the court found that James had not shown that Hinds’s neglect reached the required level. The court also noted that the dismissal had been entered almost a year earlier and that James had not described exceptional circumstances warranting relief.
Disposition
Judge Denise Cote denied James’s October 15, 2020 motion under Rule 60. The order did not reopen the action or vacate the November 12, 2019 dismissal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.