Felder v. Atria Builders
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-08842
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Felder v. Atria Builders, Judge Stanton denied Felder’s request to reopen the dismissed case and denied his damages motion as moot.
Sean G. Felder’s request to reopen the case was denied, his monetary-damages motion was denied as moot, and the case was closed. The defendants were not ordered to pay damages or take further action.
What happened
In Felder v. Atria Builders, Sean G. Felder, representing himself, asked the court to renew and continue the case and sought monetary damages, claiming discrimination. The court had previously dismissed his amended complaint for failing to state a claim.
The court treated Felder’s filings as a request to undo or obtain relief from the earlier judgment. It denied that request because Felder did not show that any listed grounds for relief applied, including extraordinary circumstances. It also denied the monetary-damages motion as moot.
Judge Louis L. Stanton closed the case and said the court would accept only documents directed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The court also stated that future frivolous or meritless filings could lead to an order requiring Felder to explain why he should not be barred from filing further documents in the action.
The detailed version
- Felder v. Atria Builders · No. 1:20-cv-08842
- Louis Stanton
- Oct. 5, 2021
Background
Sean G. Felder filed the action without a lawyer. On May 7, 2021, the court dismissed his amended complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). On September 27, 2021, Felder filed a letter stating that he wanted the case to “renew and continue.” On October 5, 2021, he filed a motion for monetary damages, asserting that the defendants had discriminated against him.
The court liberally construed these filings as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits a party to seek relief from a judgment or order in specified circumstances.
Court’s Analysis
The court considered the possible grounds under Rule 60(b)(1) through (5), including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, or satisfaction or reversal of the judgment. It concluded that Felder had not shown that any of those grounds applied, so relief under those provisions was denied.
The court also considered Rule 60(b)(6), a provision allowing relief for another reason that justifies it. The court explained that this provision requires a reason different from those covered by provisions (1) through (5), a filing within a reasonable time, and extraordinary circumstances. The court concluded that Felder had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting relief.
Disposition
The court denied Felder’s motion for reconsideration. It denied his motion for monetary damages as moot. The court closed the case under docket number 20-CV-8842 and stated that it would accept only documents directed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. It further stated that, if Felder filed other documents that were frivolous or meritless, it could require him to show why he should not be barred from filing further documents in the action.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court denied a request for relief from an earlier judgment without deciding the underlying discrimination allegations.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.