Nieves v. The City of New York
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-02138
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Nieves v. City of New York, Judge Stanton denied Michael Nieves’s motion to change the dismissal based on his ongoing state-court case.
Michael Nieves’s federal claims against The City of New York remain dismissed, and his motion to alter or amend the judgment was denied.
What happened
Michael Nieves, representing himself, sued The City of New York over alleged false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. He was also pursuing the same claims in New York state court.
The federal court had stopped exercising jurisdiction because the state case was ongoing and had warned that the federal claims might also be too late. The Second Circuit treated Nieves’s later declaration as a motion asking the federal court to change or amend its decision.
Judge Louis L. Stanton denied that motion because Nieves did not show that the court had overlooked controlling law or important facts. The complaint remains dismissed because the court abstained from exercising jurisdiction under the Colorado River doctrine.
The detailed version
- Nieves v. The City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-02138
- Louis Stanton
- May 27, 2021
Background
Michael Nieves, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, brought claims against The City of New York for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. He alleged that he was arrested on January 21, 2014, and that the criminal charges were dismissed on August 11, 2015.
Nieves had also filed a state-court action asserting the same facts and claims. The federal court ordered him to explain why it should not stop exercising jurisdiction while the state case was pending under the Colorado River doctrine, which permits a federal court in limited circumstances to decline to proceed when a parallel state case is ongoing. The court also ordered him to explain why the federal action should not be dismissed as time barred. Nieves did not respond within the required period.
In an October 15, 2020 order, the court abstained from exercising jurisdiction over the federal action. The court also stated that, if the Colorado River doctrine did not apply, it would likely dismiss the claims as time barred.
Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment
Nieves later filed a declaration and a notice of appeal. The Second Circuit directed this court to treat the declaration as a timely motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a party to ask the court to alter or amend its judgment. The Second Circuit held the appeal in abeyance while the district court considered that motion.
Nieves’s declaration quoted Section 1983 and included pages from a manual discussing Section 1983 claims, but it did not specifically address the court’s earlier order. He did not explain why the court should continue exercising jurisdiction despite the state-court action, or why the action should not be considered time barred.
Ruling
Judge Louis L. Stanton denied Nieves’s Rule 59(e) motion. The court held that Nieves had not shown that it overlooked controlling legal authority or factual matters previously presented to it. The court’s conclusion that the complaint remains dismissed because it abstained from exercising jurisdiction under the Colorado River doctrine was unchanged.
The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to Nieves and record service on the docket.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.