Nieves v. Ward
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-01382
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Nieves v. Ward, Judge Swain denied Michael Nieves’s request to reopen the dismissed action under several federal rules.
Michael Nieves’s request to reopen or reconsider the previously dismissed action was denied; the action remains closed.
What happened
In Nieves v. Ward, Michael Nieves filed an amended complaint after the court had already dismissed his action on March 3, 2022. Because the filing date was unclear, the court treated it as filed around March 5 and considered it a request to change or reconsider the judgment.
The court found that Nieves had repeated allegations from his original complaint and referred to a state-court petition, but had not shown that the court overlooked controlling law or important facts. It denied relief under Rule 59(e), Local Civil Rule 6.3, and Rule 60(b), including the provision for extraordinary circumstances.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion and closed the action. The court stated that the clerk would accept only documents directed to the federal appeals court, warned that further meritless filings could lead to a filing restriction, and denied fee-free appeal status because any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Nieves v. Ward · No. 1:22-cv-01382
- Laura Swain
- June 2, 2022
Background
Michael Nieves filed this action without a lawyer while held in the Bellevue Hospital Prison Ward. The court had dismissed the action on March 3, 2022. The court later received an amended complaint from Nieves on March 9, although the document was not entered on the docket until April 26. Because the document contained inconsistent dates and its delivery into the prison mail system was unclear, the court treated it as filed on or about March 5—after the dismissal.
How the court treated the filing
Because the action had already been dismissed, the court construed the amended complaint as a motion to alter or amend the judgment and for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3. Alternatively, the court treated it as a motion for relief from a final judgment under Rule 60(b).
Rule 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3
Relief under Rule 59(e) requires showing that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters that had already been presented. The court said Nieves merely repeated allegations from his original complaint and referred to an attached state-court petition. It concluded that he had not shown that the court overlooked controlling decisions or facts and denied relief under Rule 59(e).
The court applied the same standard under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and likewise denied relief because Nieves had not shown that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters.
Rule 60(b)
Rule 60(b) permits relief from a final judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. The court concluded that Nieves had not shown that any of the first five grounds applied and denied relief under Rule 60(b)(1) through (5).
The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which applies for reasons outside the first five categories. It found that Nieves had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under that provision.
Disposition
The court denied the motion. The action is closed. The clerk may accept only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court also stated that, if Nieves files further documents that are frivolous or meritless, it may require him to explain why he should not be barred from filing additional documents in this action. Finally, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for that purpose.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.