Murray v. NBC
- Gregory Woods
- 1:85-cv-07675
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Murray v. NBC, Judge Woods denied Murray’s requests for private filings, advance filing permission, and leave to reopen a decades-old case.
Hwesu S. Murray, the defendants in the closed case, and members of the public who can now view the filings at Docket Nos. 2 through 4.
What happened
In Murray v. NBC, Hwesu S. Murray asked to file submissions privately, obtain advance permission to submit evidence, and pursue claims concerning an asserted ownership interest in The Cosby Show. The case had been closed since 1994, and Murray’s claims against The Carsey-Werner Company, Marcia Carsey, and Thomas Werner had been dismissed with prejudice by agreement in 1987.
The court explained that changing the old judgment would require a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). A request based on new evidence would have had to be made within one year, and that deadline expired in 1988. The court also said it was unlikely that a request under another part of the rule could satisfy the requirement that it be made within a reasonable time, nearly 35 years after judgment.
Judge Woods denied Murray’s request to file the submissions ex parte or under seal, denied advance approval for the requested submissions, and did not grant leave to file an application or further evidence. He directed the clerk to make filings at Docket Nos. 2 through 4 public and denied payment-free appeal status after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Murray v. NBC · No. 1:85-cv-07675
- Gregory Woods
- June 10, 2022
Background
On May 17, 2022, Hwesu S. Murray filed several submissions without notice to the other side. The court found no justification for allowing them to be filed privately or under seal. Murray also sought advance approval to file certain evidence. The court understood that he made this request because he was barred from pursuing claims concerning his asserted ownership interest in The Cosby Show without prior approval from the presiding judge.
The case had been closed since 1994. Murray’s claims against The Carsey-Werner Company, Marcia Carsey, and Thomas Werner had been dismissed with prejudice by agreement in 1987, and Murray had stipulated to that dismissal. The order does not state that the claims against every defendant were dismissed in the same manner.
Rule 60(b) analysis
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides the procedure for seeking relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding. The rule includes grounds such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct by an opposing party, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or other reasons justifying relief. It also imposes time limits: motions based on mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud must be filed no more than one year after the judgment or order, while other requests must be made within a reasonable time.
Murray’s submissions did not address Rule 60(b) or its time limits. The court stated that, to the extent Murray was seeking relief based on new evidence concerning conduct by the Carsey-Werner defendants, the request would fall under Rule 60(b)(2), and the one-year deadline expired in 1988. The court further stated that even if Murray relied on Rule 60(b)(6), it was improbable that he could show that the request was made within a reasonable time. The court noted that the anticipated application came almost 35 years after entry of judgment and that extraordinary circumstances or extreme hardship generally are required for relief under that provision.
The court expressly stated that it was not deciding whether Murray’s recollections about statements allegedly made by Judge Cedarbaum were accurate. It also stated that a reference to a statement by Judge Amon in another court could not be understood as expressing a view that Murray’s proposed motion would have merit.
Rulings
The court denied Murray’s request to file his submissions ex parte or under seal. It ordered the clerk to change the viewing level of the filings at Docket Nos. 2 through 4 so they would be accessible to the public.
The court denied Murray’s request for advance approval to make the requested submissions and did not grant him leave to file an application or further evidence in the case. The order characterized the anticipated litigation as apparently meritless and vexatious, but it did not vacate or modify the prior judgment.
Judge Gregory H. Woods certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied payment-free appeal status. The clerk was directed to mail Murray a copy of the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.