Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-09928
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital, Judge Swain denied Nella Manko’s request to reopen the case because it was late and did not meet reconsideration standards.
Nella Manko’s effort to reopen and amend the closed action was rejected. The case remains closed, and the Clerk will accept only documents directed to the Second Circuit unless the court later orders otherwise.
What happened
In Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital, Nella Manko, representing herself, asked the court to vacate its 2021 judgment, reopen the case, and let her file an amended complaint. The court had previously dismissed her complaint, and the Second Circuit later dismissed her appeal.
The court treated Manko’s filing as requests under several rules for changing or undoing a judgment. It ruled that her requests under Rules 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3 were late. It also found that she had not shown any valid reason for relief under Rule 60(b), including the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under that rule’s final provision.
Judge Swain denied the motion for reconsideration and closed the action. The court said the Clerk would accept only documents directed to the Second Circuit and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees because the appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital · No. 1:20-cv-09928
- Laura Swain
- July 5, 2022
Background
Nella Manko filed this action without a lawyer on November 24, 2020. On July 2, 2021, the court dismissed her complaint based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. Manko appealed, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal by mandate dated November 10, 2021.
On July 3, 2022, Manko filed a 303-page motion asking the court to vacate the 2021 order and judgment, restore the action, and permit her to file an amended complaint with additional attachments. The court treated the filing as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, and a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b). The filing also referred to another action Manko had filed in this court, identified in the opinion as No. 21-CV-1725.
Rules 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3
A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed within 28 days after judgment and must show that the court overlooked controlling law or facts previously presented. Manko filed her motion more than 28 days after the July 2, 2021 judgment. The court therefore denied the motion under Rule 59(e).
A motion under Local Civil Rule 6.3 must be filed within 14 days after the relevant order or judgment and must show that the court overlooked controlling law or facts previously presented. Because Manko filed her motion more than 14 days after judgment, the court denied the motion under Local Civil Rule 6.3 as well.
Rule 60(b)
Rule 60(b) permits relief from a judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, or satisfaction or reversal of the judgment. Manko restated allegations that defendants had violated her rights while litigating her earlier state-court actions. The court concluded that, even under a liberal reading of her filing, she had not shown that any of the first five Rule 60(b) grounds applied. The court therefore denied relief under those provisions.
The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which allows relief for another reason that justifies it but cannot be used to avoid the limits governing the other provisions. A Rule 60(b)(6) motion must be filed within a reasonable time and must show extraordinary circumstances. The court found that Manko had not shown extraordinary circumstances. The opinion also notes that the motion was filed more than one year after judgment.
Disposition
The court denied Manko’s motion for reconsideration, identified as ECF 61, and closed the action. The Clerk was directed to accept only documents directed to the Second Circuit. The court also warned that, if Manko filed additional frivolous or meritless documents, it could require her to explain why she should not be barred from filing further documents in this action. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.