Zepporak Reign v. United States of America, Inc.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:17-cv-09648-CM
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Heiress Kenyatta T. Zepporak Reign v. United States of America, Inc., Judge McMahon denied reconsideration because it was late and unsupported.
The ruling affected Heiress Kenyatta T. Zepporak Reign’s request to reopen or reconsider the closed action and her ability to appeal without paying the filing fee.
What happened
Heiress Kenyatta T. Zepporak Reign asked the court to reconsider its December 2017 dismissal of her lawsuit as frivolous. She filed the request in August 2022, more than five years later.
The court said requests based on mistake, newly discovered evidence, or misconduct had to be filed within one year. It also found no other valid reason, reasonable timing, or extraordinary circumstances supporting relief. The court considered materials including a DNA report and “common law copyright.”
Judge McMahon denied the motion for reconsideration and kept the action closed. The court also denied fee-free appeal status, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Zepporak Reign v. United States of America, Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-09648-CM
- Colleen McMahon
- Sept. 27, 2022
Background
The plaintiff filed the action without a lawyer. On December 11, 2017, the court dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The opinion also states that, in a prior related proceeding, the plaintiff was barred from filing new actions without paying the filing fee unless the court gave permission, because of repeated frivolous filings.
On August 5, 2022, more than five years after the action was closed, the plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the dismissal. Her submissions included a DNA report and references to “common law copyright,” which she appeared to offer as additions to her original pleading.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits a party to seek relief from an order or judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct by an opposing party, a void judgment, satisfaction or discharge of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief.
The court held that any request based on the first three grounds—mistake, newly discovered evidence, or misconduct—was untimely because it was filed more than one year after the December 2017 judgment. The court also held that the plaintiff had not shown a basis for relief under any of the first five grounds.
The court separately considered Rule 60(b)(6), which covers other reasons justifying relief. It held that the motion was not filed within a reasonable time and that the plaintiff had not shown extraordinary circumstances warranting relief.
Disposition
The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. It stated that the action was closed and that the clerk would accept only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court warned that further frivolous or meritless documents could lead to an order requiring the plaintiff to explain why she should not be barred from filing more documents in the action.
Judge Colleen McMahon also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiff permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.