Mayes v. United States of America
- Katherine Failla
- 1:15-cv-07155
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Mayes v. United States, Judge Failla denied Mayes’s motion to reopen the case because it was untimely and did not show a void judgment.
Anthony Mayes’s request to vacate the prior judgment and reopen his case was denied; the prior judgment remained in place.
What happened
In Mayes v. United States of America, Anthony Mayes asked the court to vacate the final judgment and reopen his case. The court had previously granted the United States summary judgment, denied Mayes’s request for reconsideration, and was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Mayes argued that the earlier decisions were invalid because the court did not fairly extend the deadline for his Federal Tort Claims Act claim. The court ruled that his request came too late because he could have raised that argument before summary judgment. It also said that, even if it considered the substance of his request, Mayes had not shown the kind of jurisdictional problem or denial of notice and opportunity to be heard that could make a judgment legally void.
The court denied Mayes’s motion. Judge Katherine Polk Failla also directed the Clerk to close the motion, denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Mayes v. United States of America · No. 1:15-cv-07155
- Katherine Failla
- June 29, 2021
Background
The court had granted the United States summary judgment on March 5, 2018. It later denied Anthony Mayes’s motion for reconsideration, and the Second Circuit affirmed those rulings by summary order on January 23, 2020. Mayes then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) to vacate the judgment and reopen the case.
Mayes argued that the prior decisions were “void” because the court had failed to apply equitable tolling to his Federal Tort Claims Act claim. Equitable tolling is a doctrine that can extend a filing deadline in appropriate circumstances. The court noted that the filings for this motion were docketed on June 28, 2021.
Analysis
Rule 60(b)(4) allows relief from a final judgment only when the judgment is void. The court explained that this remedy is limited to an exceptional jurisdictional error or a due-process violation that deprived a party of notice or an opportunity to be heard. A judgment is not void merely because it is allegedly wrong.
The court first held that Mayes’s motion was not filed within the reasonable time required by Rule 60(c). The Supreme Court decision on which Mayes relied had been issued years before the court resolved the case, so Mayes could have raised his equitable-tolling arguments before summary judgment. The court therefore denied the motion as untimely.
The court also considered the request in the alternative and denied it on the merits. It found that Mayes had not shown that the court lacked jurisdiction or that he had been denied due process. The court noted that it and the Second Circuit had already considered and rejected the arguments concerning his Federal Tort Claims Act claims. The court stated that Mayes’s late request for equitable tolling did not turn the prior dismissal of his claim for failure to exhaust administrative requirements into a due-process violation.
Disposition
Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied Mayes’s motion. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion and mail a copy of the order to Mayes. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.