Cain v. Mercy College

Background

Ileene Cain filed the action without a lawyer. On February 25, 2021, the court dismissed her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that judgment and issued its mandate on July 13, 2022.

On March 8, 2023, Cain filed a letter asking the court to reopen the action, a motion asking to file a letter under seal, and a motion seeking appointment of free legal counsel. The sealing motion had initially been restricted to the parties while the court considered it.

Motion to Reopen

The court treated Cain’s request to reopen as a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Rule 60(b) allows relief for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, or other extraordinary reasons.

The court denied relief under Rule 60(b)(1) through (3) because Cain filed the motion more than one year after entry of the judgment. The court also found that, even interpreting her motion liberally, she had not shown that the grounds under Rule 60(b)(4) or (5) applied. The court denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6) as well because Cain had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting relief.

Motion to Seal

Cain submitted a December 17, 2020 letter from the president of Mercy College to the college community. The letter described an incident on the Zoom platform involving what it called “racist remarks and disturbing imagery.” Cain argued that the letter contained sensitive information related to her claims and could have harmful effects if viewed by people unfamiliar with the litigation.

The court explained that the common law and the First Amendment protect public access to court documents, although that access is not absolute. Courts generally consider whether a filing is a judicial document, the strength of the public-access presumption, and competing concerns such as privacy.

The court denied the sealing motion. It found that the letter was not part of the record and had played no role in the court’s decision because it was filed after the case had closed. The court also stated that an open letter addressed to an entire college community, filed in a closed case, should not be placed under seal.

Appointment of Counsel and Disposition

The court denied Cain’s motion for appointment of free legal counsel as moot. It also denied the motion to reopen and the motion to seal, directed the clerk to lift the electronic restriction on the sealing motion, and stated that the action was closed.

The court warned that if Cain filed future documents that were frivolous or meritless, it could direct her to explain why she should not be barred from filing further documents in the action.