Chavez v. Finney
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-04109
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Chavez v. Finney, Judge Abrams construed Chavez’s letter as a possible reconsideration request and gave him until May 13, 2022, to clarify.
Juan Pablo Chavez, who must clarify the procedure he intends to use to challenge the March 23 order; the defendants are Sergeant William Finney, Officer Stephen Streicher, and Officer Anthony Tortorice.
What happened
In Chavez v. Finney, the court addressed a letter from Juan Pablo Chavez about the court’s March 23, 2022, order. That earlier order granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
The court said a motion under Rule 60(b) was not the proper way to challenge an order that granted and denied summary judgment in part. It therefore treated Chavez’s letter as expressing an intention to seek reconsideration, if Chavez agreed with that interpretation.
Judge Ronnie Abrams gave Chavez until May 13, 2022, either to file a motion for reconsideration or to explain why another procedure applied. The court also identified a possible request to appeal the March 23 order, but stated that the order was not final and could be appealed only if the court certified an immediate appeal under the applicable statute.
The detailed version
- Chavez v. Finney · No. 1:19-cv-04109
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 12, 2022
Background
The defendants had moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide claims without a trial when the relevant facts are not genuinely disputed. On March 23, 2022, the court issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part that motion. The current order does not describe the claims or explain the reasoning in the March 23 decision.
The court received a letter from Plaintiff Juan Pablo Chavez stating his intention to file a motion under Rule 60(b) in response to the March 23 ruling. Rule 60(b) provides certain grounds for seeking relief from a judgment or order, but the court stated that it was not a proper procedure for challenging an order that granted and denied summary judgment in part.
Court’s action
The court construed Chavez’s letter as expressing an intention to file a motion for reconsideration. A reconsideration motion asks the same court to revisit its decision based on grounds such as overlooked controlling decisions, a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. The court directed Chavez to file such a motion by May 13, 2022, if he agreed with that characterization.
If Chavez did not agree that reconsideration was the proper procedure, the court directed him to submit a letter by May 13 explaining what other procedural mechanism governed his request. The court specifically noted that Chavez might be seeking an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, either instead of or in addition to reconsideration.
Appeal and service instructions
The court stated that the March 23 order was not final. It explained that an appeal could proceed at that stage only if the court certified an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). For such a request, Chavez would need to explain why the order involved a controlling legal question on which there was substantial disagreement and why an immediate appeal might materially advance the end of the litigation.
The court did not grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, a Rule 60(b) motion, or certification for an interlocutory appeal in this order. It directed the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of the order to Chavez at the California address listed in the order and to add that address to the docket for future communications.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.