Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 9, 2022

Smith v. City of New York

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:20-cv-11136
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro SePreliminary Injunction
In one sentence

Smith v. City of New York: Judge Schofield denied reconsideration and an injunction because the case was closed and Plaintiff showed no basis to revisit the judgment.

Who this affects

Myra S. Smith and the City of New York.

What happened

In Smith v. City of New York, the court had already dismissed Myra S. Smith’s federal claims as filed too late, declined to hear her remaining claims, entered judgment for the City, and closed the case.

Smith asked for permission to seek reconsideration of that judgment. She also sought an injunction to prevent the City from ending her employment or changing her working conditions while the case was pending.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied both motions. The court found that Smith identified no new facts, new law, or clear error, and that the request for an injunction was moot because the case was fully resolved and closed.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Smith v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-11136
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Nov. 9, 2022

Background

An earlier Opinion and Order dated July 15, 2022, dismissed Myra S. Smith’s federal claims as untimely and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining claims. The court also denied Smith’s request to proceed without paying court fees on appeal, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. The Clerk entered judgment for the City of New York on July 18, 2022, and closed the case.

Motions

On November 7, 2022, Smith, who was proceeding without a lawyer, filed a proposed order asking for permission to file a motion for reconsideration of the judgment. She also filed a proposed stay and restraining order seeking an injunction that would prevent the City from terminating her employment or changing her working conditions while the action was pending.

The court explained that reconsideration is appropriate only to correct a clear error or when the moving party presents new facts or law that could change the original decision. Although Smith’s filings were read liberally because she was not represented by a lawyer, the court found that she identified no new facts, new law, or clear error in the July 15 Opinion and Order.

Rulings

Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that Smith’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The court also ordered that Smith’s motion for an injunction against the City is DENIED. The court found the injunction request moot because the action had been fully resolved and the case was closed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.