Whittington v. Ponte
- Alison Nathan
- 1:16-cv-01152
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Whittington v. Ponte, Judge Nathan denied Matthew Whittington’s requests to reopen the closed case, reconsider judgment, obtain relief, or extend his appeal deadline.
Matthew Whittington’s request to reopen the closed case was denied; the defendants’ prior judgment remained in place.
What happened
In Whittington v. Ponte, Matthew Whittington, representing himself, asked the court to reopen his case after saying prison transfers prevented him from receiving notice of the judgment. The court had entered judgment for the defendants after granting their summary-judgment motion in May 2020.
The court treated Whittington’s request as possibly seeking reconsideration, relief from the final judgment, or more time to appeal. It concluded that the reconsideration request did not identify overlooked controlling decisions or information, that the request was untimely, and that Whittington could not show a potentially successful claim for relief from the judgment. The request to extend the appeal deadline was also untimely.
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied the request to reopen the case and denied each of the three forms of relief. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying court fees, finding that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Whittington v. Ponte · No. 1:16-cv-01152
- Alison Nathan
- Mar. 28, 2022
Background
Matthew Whittington, who was representing himself, moved to reopen his closed case. He said that multiple transfers during his incarceration prevented him from receiving notice of the judgment and interfered with his ability to continue his legal obligations.
The court had granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on May 27, 2020, entered judgment, and closed the case on May 28, 2020. The court’s decision was first returned by mail but was successfully served on Whittington on July 9, 2020. Whittington’s letter requesting that the case be reopened was postmarked September 28, 2020.
Requests Considered
The court interpreted Whittington’s letter as potentially seeking three forms of relief:
1. Reconsideration: The court denied reconsideration because Whittington did not identify controlling decisions or information that the court had overlooked and that could reasonably have changed its conclusion. The court also stated that a request for an extension of the deadline to seek reconsideration was untimely under Local Civil Rule 6.3, which requires the motion to be served within fourteen days after the court’s decision.
2. Relief from the final judgment: The court considered the request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, which can allow relief from a final judgment for reasons including mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect. The court stated that even a showing of excusable neglect would also require Whittington to show that he had a potentially successful claim. Referring to the reasons in its May 27, 2020 opinion, the court concluded that he could not make that showing.
3. More time to appeal: The court denied an extension because the request was untimely. An appeal generally must be noticed within thirty days after entry of the judgment or order. An extension requires a motion within the additional period allowed by the appellate rules, so the court stated that the request had to be made within sixty days. Even using the July 9, 2020 service date, the court concluded that Whittington’s request was too late.
Disposition
The court denied Whittington’s request to reopen the case and denied each of the three possible forms of relief. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. The clerk was directed to mail Whittington a copy of the order and record the mailing on the public docket.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.