Diarra v. New York City

Background

Moussa Diarra moved for reconsideration of the court’s November 7, 2022 order denying him leave to file a motion to reopen his case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3). The earlier judgment against Diarra was entered on summary judgment on September 20, 2018. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that judgment on August 16, 2019, and the Supreme Court denied review on November 25, 2019.

Diarra’s proposed motion relied on alleged fraud on the court by Dara Weiss, an attorney for the City of New York. Diarra pointed to Weiss’s misconduct in an unrelated case, emails, discovery-related conduct, redacted documents, a news article, and discovery responses. The court previously concluded from the parties’ pre-motion papers that the proposed Rule 60(d)(3) motion would be frivolous and denied leave to file it.

Arguments and legal standard

Diarra argued that the court should have permitted full briefing on the proposed motion. Reconsideration is generally available only when there has been an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence has become available, or correction is needed because of clear error or manifest injustice. The court explained that reconsideration is not a way to relitigate old issues, present new theories, or take a second opportunity to strengthen a rejected motion.

The court also explained that Rule 60(d)(3) relief requires a high showing. A party must prove fraud on the court by clear and convincing evidence, and conclusory allegations are insufficient. The court relied on decisions allowing courts to deny frivolous Rule 60(d)(3) motions based on detailed pre-motion papers showing that the proposed motions would lack merit.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Diarra had submitted extensive papers and exhibits, including an opportunity to respond to the court’s concerns. Nothing in the new materials showed that his proposed motion would not be frivolous. The court emphasized that Diarra did not identify a specific fraudulent act by Weiss in this case. The emails he submitted indicated that Weiss was not substantively involved in litigating his case. The news article concerned Weiss’s misconduct in an unrelated case, and the discovery document Diarra submitted was not signed by Weiss and did not connect her to fraud.

The court also determined that much of Diarra’s filing was an attempt to relitigate the prior summary judgment. His arguments challenged the arresting officer’s conduct, New York City policies, discovery responses, and the evidence and legal conclusions from the original case. The court noted that Diarra had already deposed the arresting officer and could have submitted admissible evidence during the summary-judgment proceedings. It further noted that Diarra acknowledged that much of the evidence he wanted to use had already been presented during those proceedings.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied Diarra’s motion for reconsideration. The court concluded that Diarra had not shown that it overlooked any facts or law that would support reconsidering the earlier order. The opinion concerns the denial of reconsideration and does not reopen the case or alter the prior summary judgment.