Gannaway v. The People of New York, NY
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-10314
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Gannaway v. The People of New York, NY, Judge Swain denied an unnecessary appeal-extension motion and denied requests to undo the dismissal.
Shakur D. Gannaway, the pro se petitioner; the People of New York, NY, the respondent; and the Clerk of Court, who was directed to mail the order and record service.
What happened
Gannaway v. The People of New York, NY concerns a pro se petitioner’s challenge to an earlier dismissal of his action as duplicative and without prejudice. He submitted an objection, a request for more time to appeal, and a notice of appeal.
The court ruled that the notice of appeal was timely, so it denied the request for an extension as unnecessary. It treated the objection as requests to change or reconsider the judgment under several federal and local rules.
The court denied those requests because Gannaway had not shown overlooked law or facts, a qualifying reason for relief, or extraordinary circumstances. Judge Swain also directed the Clerk to mail him the order and record service on the docket.
The detailed version
- Gannaway v. The People of New York, NY · No. 1:21-cv-10314
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 5, 2022
Background
An earlier order and judgment, entered on December 7, 2021, dismissed Shakur D. Gannaway’s pro se action without prejudice as duplicative. On December 28, 2021, the court received three submissions from Gannaway: an objection to the dismissal order, a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, and a notice of appeal.
The court liberally construed the objection as three motions: a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, and a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b).
Appeal deadline
The court concluded that Gannaway’s notice of appeal was timely. Because the dismissal judgment was entered on December 7, 2021, the ordinary 30-day deadline was January 6, 2022. Gannaway submitted the notice for mailing from prison on or about December 20, and the court received it on December 28. The court therefore denied the motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal as unnecessary.
Authority to consider the other motions
Although filing a notice of appeal generally transfers control over the appealed matters to the appeals court, the district court retained authority to decide the Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) motions because they were filed within the applicable period. The court stated that Gannaway had until January 4, 2022, to file a motion that would be considered under those rules, and it received his motion on December 28, 2021.
Rule 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3
Rule 59(e) permits a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment. Local Civil Rule 6.3 governs reconsideration motions. The court said both standards require showing that it overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented to it. It found that Gannaway had not made that showing and denied relief under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3.
Rule 60(b)
Rule 60(b) allows relief from a judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, and other qualifying reasons. The court found that Gannaway had not shown that any of the grounds in Rule 60(b)(1) through (5) applied and denied relief under those provisions.
The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which covers other reasons justifying relief. It explained that this provision requires a reason different from those in clauses (1) through (5), a filing within a reasonable time, and extraordinary circumstances. The court found that Gannaway had not shown extraordinary circumstances.
Disposition
The court denied Gannaway’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal as unnecessary because the notice was timely. It also denied the motion construed from his objection under Rule 59(e), Local Civil Rule 6.3, and Rule 60(b). The court directed the Clerk to mail a copy of the order to Gannaway and note service on the docket.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.