Morris v. The United States of America
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-02015-LLS
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Morris v. United States, United States District Judge Stanton denied Morris’s motion after construing it as requests for reconsideration and relief from judgment.
Keith S. Morris’s request to reopen or obtain relief from the earlier dismissal was denied; the order also directed the clerk to mail him a copy and record service.
What happened
Keith S. Morris, who represented himself, asked the court to compel the U.S. Department of Labor to release insurance benefits before they were destroyed. The court had previously dismissed his amended complaint without prejudice because he had not alleged that he completed required administrative steps with the Social Security Administration.
The court treated Morris’s filing as a request to change or reconsider the earlier judgment and, alternatively, as a request for relief from that judgment. It concluded that he had not shown that the court overlooked controlling law or facts, or that any recognized reason justified relief.
United States District Judge Louis L. Stanton denied the motion. The clerk was directed to mail Morris a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
The detailed version
- Morris v. The United States of America · No. 1:20-cv-02015-LLS
- Louis Stanton
- Apr. 8, 2021
Background
Keith S. Morris filed the action without a lawyer. On November 6, 2020, the court dismissed his amended complaint without prejudice under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) because he had not alleged that he exhausted any administrative remedies with the Social Security Administration.
On March 16, 2021, Morris filed a motion asking the court to compel the U.S. Department of Labor to release his insurance benefits before, he asserted, they were destroyed by defendants or their agents. The court liberally construed the filing as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment, a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, and, alternatively, a motion under Rule 60(b) for relief from the judgment or order.
Court’s Analysis
For the Rule 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3 requests, the court explained that Morris had to show that it overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court found that he had not made that showing, and denied those requests.
The court also considered the filing under Rule 60(b), which permits relief from a judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct by an opposing party, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. The court found that Morris had not shown that any of the first five grounds applied. It also found that he had not demonstrated the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
Disposition
United States District Judge Louis L. Stanton denied Morris’s motion to compel, as construed as a motion for reconsideration. The order does not state that the earlier dismissal was changed. The clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to Morris and note service on the docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.