Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:21-cv-01725
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital, Judge McMahon denied Manko’s request to reopen the case and left the action closed.
Nella Manko’s request to reopen the action was denied, and the case remained closed; the order also affected the filing of further documents in this action by directing the clerk to accept only documents addressed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
What happened
In Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital, Nella Manko filed the case without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. An earlier order had barred her from filing new cases without permission to proceed without paying, and the court dismissed this case after she did not follow that order. An appeals court later dismissed her appeal.
Manko then asked the court to restore the case and issue summonses for the defendants. The court treated that request as a motion asking for relief from the earlier order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
Judge Colleen McMahon denied the motion because Manko did not show that any listed reason for relief applied, including the requirement of extraordinary circumstances for the rule’s catchall provision. The court closed the action and stated that the clerk would accept only documents directed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The detailed version
- Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital · No. 1:21-cv-01725
- Colleen McMahon
- June 9, 2022
Background
Nella Manko filed this action without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. A July 11, 2013 order had barred her from filing any new action without paying the fee unless she first obtained permission from the court. On March 1, 2021, the court dismissed this case without prejudice because Manko did not comply with that order. The Court of Appeals later dismissed her appeal, stating that it lacked an arguable basis in law or fact.
Motion
On April 18, 2022, Manko asked the court to restore the case and issue summonses for the dozens of defendants named in the complaint. The court treated the filing as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows a court to provide relief from an order or judgment for specified reasons, such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, or other extraordinary circumstances.
Manko sought to challenge the 2013 filing bar, stating that she had not been aware of all public orders against her. The court stated that any request to reconsider the order in the earlier related proceeding had to be filed in that proceeding.
Court’s analysis
The court held that Manko had not shown that any of the grounds listed in Rule 60(b)(1) through (5) applied, so relief under those provisions was denied. The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which requires a reason distinct from the other provisions and a showing that extraordinary circumstances justify relief. The court found that Manko had not made that showing.
Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon denied Manko’s motion for reconsideration. The action was closed. The clerk was directed to accept only filings directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; the court also warned that further frivolous or meritless filings could lead to an order requiring Manko to explain why additional filing restrictions should not be imposed. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the fee for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.