Adeniji v. Online Taxes Inc.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-09884
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Adeniji v. Online Taxes, Judge McMahon denied Adeniji’s Rule 60(b) motion to reopen an action previously dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
OluYesi Adeniji, whose request to reopen the previously dismissed action was denied; Online Taxes, Inc., which remained the defendant in the dismissed action.
What happened
In Adeniji v. Online Taxes Inc., the court had previously dismissed OluYesi Adeniji’s self-represented case because it lacked authority to hear the subject. The court had also denied Adeniji’s request for more time to appeal.
Adeniji later filed a motion to reopen the case. The court treated it as a request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows relief from a judgment for specified reasons. The court found that the request was late for some of those reasons and that Adeniji had not shown facts supporting the other listed grounds or extraordinary circumstances.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied the motion. She directed the Clerk of Court to accept no further filings from Adeniji in this docket, except papers directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and denied fee-free appeal status because any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Adeniji v. Online Taxes Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09884
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 26, 2021
Background
By an order and judgment entered on December 26, 2019, the court dismissed OluYesi Adeniji’s self-represented action against Online Taxes, Inc. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court concluded it did not have legal authority to decide the case. Adeniji later moved for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal; the court denied that motion on July 13, 2020.
On January 20, 2021, Adeniji filed a “motion to reopen.” The court construed that filing as a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 60(b) Analysis
Rule 60(b) identifies several grounds for relief from a judgment or order, including mistake or excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct by the opposing party, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, and other reasons that justify relief.
The court held that any request under Rule 60(b)(1), (2), or (3) was untimely. The judgment was entered on December 26, 2019, and the deadline for those grounds was extended to December 28, 2020, because the original deadline fell on a Saturday. Adeniji did not file the motion until January 20, 2021.
The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(1) through (5) because Adeniji had not alleged facts showing that any of those grounds applied. For Rule 60(b)(6), which covers other reasons justifying relief, the court explained that the motion had to be filed within a reasonable time and had to show extraordinary circumstances. The court found that Adeniji had not alleged facts demonstrating extraordinary circumstances.
Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon denied the motion to reopen. The court directed the Clerk of Court to accept no further submissions from Adeniji under this docket number, except papers directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied fee-free appeal status for that appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.