Diarra v. New York City

Background

Moussa Diarra filed a second motion to reopen his case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(1). That rule allows a court to consider an independent action seeking relief from a judgment, order, or proceeding. The court had denied Diarra’s earlier motion to reopen because it would be frivolous and had also denied his motion to reconsider that ruling.

Diarra also submitted another letter directed to Chief Judge Laura Swain. The opinion states that Chief Judge Swain and former Chief Judge Colleen McMahon had previously told Diarra that similar letters seeking relief were improper. The court said Diarra continued to send such letters or include the Chief Judges on filings.

Rule 60(d)(1) Standard

The court explained that relief through an independent action under Rule 60(d)(1) has a high standard. A claimant must show that no other adequate remedy is available, that the claimant’s own fault or carelessness did not create the problem, and that a recognized ground such as fraud, accident, or mistake supports equitable relief. Such actions are available only to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice. When the request relies on new evidence, the evidence must make enforcement of the judgment plainly and seriously unfair.

Court’s Analysis

Diarra offered two categories of evidence. First, he again alleged misconduct in the litigation by New York City attorney Dara Lynn Weiss. The court said it had already considered and rejected those assertions, and that the new motion did not change that analysis.

Second, Diarra relied on a March 25, 2023, Hollywood Reporter article about a domestic-violence arrest. The article quoted the arrested person’s defense attorney as saying that the New York City Police Department was required to make an arrest in those circumstances. Diarra argued that this supported his claim that the New York City Police Department used unconstitutional arrest practices.

The court found that the quoted statement was not sufficient new evidence. It concerned an unrelated case, was made more than eight years after Diarra’s 2014 arrest, and came from an attorney speaking to a media outlet while advocating for that attorney’s client. The court also noted that Diarra spent little of his motion applying Rule 60(d)(1) to the evidence and instead largely repeated arguments about Weiss and discovery matters already in the record.

Disposition and Filing Requirements

The court characterized the second motion as frivolous and without merit and DENIED Diarra’s motion to reopen his case. The court also FURTHER ORDERED that every future filing by Diarra in the matter include an affidavit signed by Diarra himself. The affidavit must state that Diarra understands the filing and the relief requested; knows that both motions to reopen were found frivolous and without merit; knows that he and his attorney were warned that letters to the Chief Judge seeking relief were improper; and knows that future frivolous filings could lead to sanctions, including restrictions requiring permission to file.

The court warned that continued frivolous filings could lead to an order requiring Diarra to explain why filing restrictions should not be imposed. The opinion also states that the court was concerned that the filings might be driven by Diarra’s attorney, Kissinger Sibanda, but the order quoted here specifically required the affidavit for future filings by Diarra.