Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital

Background

A 2013 order barred Nella Manko from filing a new case without a lawyer, without paying the filing fee, or without first obtaining court permission to file without paying. Manko filed this case without first obtaining that permission and wrote on the envelope that the filing fee had been paid. The district court nevertheless found no record that the required fee had been paid when it dismissed the complaint without prejudice and entered judgment on December 17, 2020.

Manko appealed and submitted a receipt showing that she had paid the filing fee on December 11, 2020. The docket was then updated to show that the Finance Department had processed the payment on that date. Manko also asked the district court to restore the case.

Court’s analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) allows a court to correct a clerical mistake or an omission in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. But when an appeal has been docketed and remains pending, the district court may make that correction only with permission from the appeals court.

Judge Colleen McMahon found that the failure to note Manko’s payment was a clerical mistake. The court stated that, had it known about the payment, it would not have dismissed the complaint or entered judgment. Because Manko’s appeal was pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, however, the district court concluded that it could not correct the mistake on its own.

The court also explained that, to the extent Manko’s request could be treated as a separate motion for relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b), the district court lacked authority to grant it after the appeal had been filed. The court said that the relevant exception did not apply because Manko filed that request more than 28 days after judgment. It also said the request was moot in light of the application asking the Second Circuit to restore the district court’s authority to act.

Disposition

The district court applied to the Second Circuit for leave under Rule 60(a) to correct the erroneous dismissal order and judgment. It directed the Clerk of Court to docket the application and send it to the appeals court. The district court stated that, if permission were granted, it intended to vacate the dismissal and judgment, reinstate Manko’s complaint, and direct the Clerk’s Office to return the $505 appeal fee. This opinion did not itself grant that relief.