Diarra v. New York City
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:16-cv-07075
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Diarra v. New York City: Judge Broderick denied leave to seek reopening under Rule 60(d)(3), finding conclusory fraud allegations and improper policy arguments.
Moussa Diarra and the City of New York; the ruling denied Diarra’s request to reopen the already-judged case.
What happened
In Diarra v. City of New York, Moussa Diarra asked to reopen the case and set aside the judgment against him based on alleged attorney misconduct and an unconstitutional City policy. The judgment had been affirmed on appeal, and the Supreme Court had denied review.
The court explained that reopening under Rule 60(d)(3) requires clear and convincing evidence of fraud that seriously interfered with the judicial process. Judge Broderick found that Diarra gave no specific examples of misconduct, did not explain his delay, and did not show how the alleged conduct caused fraud. The court also said that arguments about unconstitutional policies were legal arguments, not fraud claims covered by this rule.
Judge Broderick denied Diarra’s request for leave to file a motion to reopen the case, concluding that the proposed motion would be frivolous. The court also noted that much of the evidence Diarra wanted to present had already been obtained and considered during the earlier proceedings.
The detailed version
- Diarra v. New York City · No. 1:16-cv-07075
- Vernon Broderick
- Nov. 7, 2022
Background
Moussa Diarra requested leave to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) to reopen the case and set aside the judgment against him. The City of New York opposed the request. Judge Broderick had entered judgment against Diarra on September 18, 2018. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment, and the Supreme Court denied review.
Diarra relied on two reasons. First, he alleged misconduct by Dara Weiss, an attorney for the City, including misrepresenting facts and conducting discovery in an obstructive and uncivil manner. Second, he argued that he had been subjected to an unconstitutional policy promulgated by the City.
Legal standard
Rule 60(d)(3) addresses a fraud-on-the-court claim. The court explained that such a claim requires allegations of fraud that seriously affect the integrity of the ordinary process of deciding a case. The alleged fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence and must involve conduct that interfered with the judicial system’s ability to decide the matter fairly. The court stated that the standard for invoking Rule 60(d) is high and that conclusory allegations cannot support relief.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Diarra’s allegations about Weiss were conclusory. He did not provide an example of the alleged conduct, explain why he waited to seek relief, or explain how the conduct resulted in fraud on the court.
The court also considered Diarra’s proposed remedy: a hearing at which he and the police officer whose arrest of him led to the case would provide evidence. Diarra had already deposed the officer, and he could have submitted admissible testimony during the summary-judgment proceedings. In addition, his papers acknowledged that most of the evidence he wanted to present had already been admitted during those proceedings and was before the court. Judge Broderick concluded that this admission was inconsistent with Diarra’s claim that discovery misconduct justified new proceedings.
The court separately held that Diarra’s arguments about unconstitutional policies were legal arguments, not fraud claims. They therefore were not proper grounds for a motion under Rule 60(d)(3). Although Diarra sought only permission to file the motion rather than filing the motion itself, the court concluded that the absence of any specific fraud allegations showed that the proposed motion would be frivolous.
Disposition
Judge Broderick denied Diarra’s request for leave to move to reopen the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.