Williams v. Clott
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-04207
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Williams v. Clott, Judge Failla denied Tearre M. Williams’s request to reverse the dismissal because he showed no extraordinary circumstances or extreme hardship.
Tearre M. Williams; the court did not reverse the earlier dismissal.
What happened
In Williams v. Clott, Tearre M. Williams asked the court to reverse its earlier dismissal. He said his detention had prevented him from responding to the court.
The court treated the request as a motion under Rule 60(b)(6), which allows relief from a final order for another reason that justifies it. The court found that Williams’s detention had not affected the case because it had not asked him to respond, and that he had not shown the extraordinary circumstances or extreme hardship required for relief.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied Williams’s motion. The earlier dismissal therefore was not reversed. The court had previously dismissed his civil-rights claims as frivolous and based on judicial immunity, prosecutorial immunity, and a rule requiring federal courts to refrain from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings; it dismissed his request for relief from detention without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Clott · No. 1:21-cv-04207
- Katherine Failla
- May 18, 2022
Background
Tearre M. Williams, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion and declaration seeking reversal of the court’s earlier dismissal. Williams claimed that the case had been dismissed because his detention prevented him from appearing or responding.
Legal standard
The court construed Williams’s filing as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). That rule permits relief from a final judgment or order for another reason that justifies relief. The court explained that relief requires extraordinary circumstances or an extreme hardship, and that the person seeking relief bears the burden of proof.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Williams had not met that demanding standard. The earlier dismissal order showed that the court had not requested a response from Williams, so his detention had not affected the resolution of the matter. The court also noted that it had previously dismissed Williams’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as frivolous and under judicial and prosecutorial immunity, as well as under the rule known as Younger abstention. The court had dismissed Williams’s claims seeking relief from detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Disposition
The court denied Williams’s motion under Rule 60(b)(6). The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket number 9.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.