Jackson v. Stanford
- Alison Nathan
- 1:16-cv-09702
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Jackson v. Stanford, Judge Nathan denied Jackson’s motion to reconsider dismissal of his constitutional-rights claims.
Nahshon Jackson and the defendant New York parole and corrections officials, including Tina M. Stanford, Jeff McKoy, and Jeffery A. Hale; the order also refers to Defendant Mallozzi.
What happened
In Jackson v. Stanford, Nahshon Jackson, who represented himself, asked the court to reconsider its 2019 dismissal of his claims against New York corrections and parole officials. He had alleged violations involving religious exercise, due process, and petitioning the government.
Jackson argued that the earlier dismissal was based on misrepresentations, improper service, and other errors. He also argued that extraordinary circumstances justified reopening the judgment.
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied the motion. She found that Jackson had not provided the required evidence or shown extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration. The court also denied his request to proceed without paying fees on appeal.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Stanford · No. 1:16-cv-09702
- Alison Nathan
- Nov. 20, 2020
Background
Nahshon Jackson filed this civil-rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his rights to religious exercise, due process, and petitioning the government. He was an adherent of the Rastafarian faith and alleged that prison officials replaced a food program consistent with his faith with a hot kosher menu that left him with insufficient food on some days. He also challenged the handling of his parole and incarceration and alleged that officials failed to address his grievance.
In September 2019, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. It dismissed Jackson’s due-process challenges to his parole revocation and parole determination because he had not adequately alleged the defendants’ personal involvement. It dismissed his religious-exercise claim because he had not exhausted administrative remedies, dismissed his right-to-petition claim, and denied his motion for default judgment.
Motion for Reconsideration
Jackson moved for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. He argued under Rule 60(b)(3) that the earlier judgment involved fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct. He argued under Rule 60(b)(4) that the judgment was void because defendants had not been properly served. He also invoked Rule 60(b)(6), which permits relief for another reason justifying relief when extraordinary circumstances exist.
The court rejected these arguments. It stated that it had already determined that the defendants had appeared and filed responsive pleadings, and that any defective service did not deprive the court of jurisdiction because the service defense could be waived. The court also reiterated that the defendants were not in default. Jackson provided no clear and convincing evidence supporting relief under Rules 60(b)(3) or 60(b)(4).
As to Rule 60(b)(6), the court found that Jackson offered conclusory and unsupported assertions and did not identify extraordinary circumstances that justified reopening the judgment. The court considered his arguments liberally because he was representing himself but found no basis to reconsider the earlier dismissal.
Ruling
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied Jackson’s motion for reconsideration. The order resolved Docket Nos. 55 and 56. The court also found that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Jackson permission to proceed without paying filing fees for that appeal.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.