Singleton v. City of New York

Background

The court had dismissed Aaron Singleton’s action without prejudice on August 9, 2021, before deciding his application to proceed without paying the filing fee. It dismissed the action as duplicative of his pending action under docket number 21-CV-2893. Singleton later filed a notice of appeal and requested an extension of time to appeal. The court ruled that the appeal was timely under the prison-mailbox rule and that an extension was unnecessary. Singleton also requested appointment of free legal counsel and was told that any request for counsel related to the appeal could be made in the federal appeals court.

On October 19, 2021, Singleton filed a letter asking the court to reopen this action, add defendants from his first complaint, address the complaints against those defendants, and reconsider the dismissal as duplicative. The court had previously ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to address the letter, but it amended that ruling here.

Jurisdiction and treatment of the letter

The court concluded that Singleton’s letter was filed more than 28 days after the August 9 judgment, so it did not prevent his appeal from taking effect. Ordinarily, once the appeal takes effect, the district court cannot grant a motion under Rule 60(b) seeking relief from the judgment. Rule 62.1, however, allows a district court to deny a timely motion for relief when a pending appeal prevents it from granting that motion. The court held that Singleton’s motion was timely because it was filed within a reasonable time—70 days after the judgment—and therefore that it had authority under Rule 62.1(a)(2) to deny it.

The court separately considered whether the letter challenged its October 1, 2021 order concerning the extension of time to appeal and appointment of counsel. Because the letter was filed within 18 days of that order, the court would have had authority to grant or deny a timely request challenging it. But the court found that the letter did not discuss those requests and instead sought to reopen the action. It therefore treated the letter as a Rule 60(b) motion challenging the August 9 dismissal and judgment.

Reason for denial

The court explained that Rule 60(b) permits relief from a judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. The court found that Singleton did not explain why dismissal as duplicative was improper or otherwise show that any Rule 60(b) ground applied.

The court noted that all five defendants in this action were also named in Singleton’s earlier action, which included additional defendants. It also noted that Singleton had been allowed to file an amended complaint in the earlier action to add new or different information or allegations. The court further observed that, after an order in the earlier action concerning his eligibility to proceed without paying the filing fee, a later order granted his application to proceed without paying that fee in that action. The court concluded that there was no longer a barrier to adjudicating the earlier action.

Disposition

The court amended its February 9, 2022 order to state that Singleton’s letter was a timely Rule 60(b) motion challenging the August 9, 2021 dismissal without prejudice. It held that it had jurisdiction under Rule 62.1 to deny the motion and denied the Rule 60(b) motion. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.