Morris v. Trump

Background

Keith S. Morris filed the complaint without a lawyer. His claims concerned the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs’ 2017 failure to renew his license to act as a towing operator based on his criminal history, as well as problems involving unemployment insurance and Social Security benefits.

In a June 1, 2021 order, the court stated that many federal defendants were immune from suit, that Morris’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 appeared to be barred by the three-year filing deadline, and that Morris had not alleged exhaustion of the required administrative process if he was seeking review of a Social Security benefits decision. The court gave him 60 days to amend his complaint. On August 3, 2021, because he had not filed an amended complaint, the court dismissed the action and entered judgment.

On August 4, 2021, the clerk docketed Morris’s letter requesting more time to amend. Morris also filed a notice of appeal.

Rule 59(e) Motion

The court treated Morris’s letter as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which permits a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment. The court found the motion timely and therefore concluded that it could decide the motion despite the notice of appeal.

Morris sought additional time because he was caring for his elderly mother and lacked legal expertise. Although the letter was docketed after the case had been closed, the court had received it while the case was still pending. The court found that Morris had shown valid reasons for needing more time.

Leave to Amend

The court repeated requirements from its June 2021 order. Morris could not seek damages from Social Security Commissioner Saul or Administrative Law Judge Fuller. If he sought judicial review of a Social Security decision, he had to allege facts showing that he had completed the administrative process, including an initial determination, reconsideration, a hearing before an administrative law judge, and review by the Appeals Council.

If Morris included his § 1983 claim concerning the 2017 towing-license denial, he had to explain why the three-year filing deadline did not bar the claim when he filed the original complaint on May 14, 2021, including facts supporting any claim that the deadline should be extended for fairness reasons. He also had to identify what each individual defendant personally did or failed to do. Any amended complaint would completely replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.

Disposition

The court granted Morris’s Rule 59(e) motion, directed the clerk to vacate the order of dismissal and judgment, and reopened the matter. It directed Morris to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the order. The court stated that no summons would issue at that time and that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the entire complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Morris permission to proceed without paying appellate fees. The order did not decide the merits of Morris’s underlying claims.