Rubin v. New York City Board of Education

Background

On March 3, 2023, the court adopted a report and recommendation and granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint because it did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a complaint to provide a clear and organized statement of the claims. The court gave Plaintiff until March 31, 2023, to file a letter of no more than three pages asking for permission to file an amended complaint and explaining how the proposed complaint would correct the identified problems. The court warned that no extension would be granted absent extraordinary circumstances and that failing to meet the deadline would mean that Plaintiff could not file the amended complaint and the case would be dismissed.

Motion for Reconsideration

On March 31, 2023, Plaintiff moved for reconsideration under several federal rules and, as the court understood it, the applicable local rule. A motion for reconsideration asks the court to revisit an earlier decision. The court explained that such a motion generally requires an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent serious unfairness.

Plaintiff’s argument concerning the earlier order was that the court had improperly required specific instructions about the format and content of the amended complaint. The court rejected that argument. It distinguished the cases Plaintiff cited, explaining that those cases involved improper requirements for detailed factual allegations, including dates and the names of every person involved. Here, the earlier order primarily limited the proposed amended complaint to twenty-five pages and prohibited exhibits. The order also suggested focusing on certain claims, listed their elements, and stated that the complaint should allege only enough facts to support those elements.

The court also considered the request under Rule 60(b), which permits relief from a judgment or order for specified reasons such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. The court found that Plaintiff had not shown any of those grounds. It also found that arguments concerning sanctions, alleged unauthorized orders by the Magistrate Judge, and previously vacated certificates of default were unsupported by the record or applicable law.

Disposition

The court ordered that the motion for reconsideration was DENIED. It further ordered that, because Plaintiff had not filed the required letter and proposed amended complaint by March 31, 2023, the case was dismissed. The clerk was directed to close the motion, close the case, and mail a copy of the order to the pro se Plaintiff, meaning Plaintiff was not represented by a lawyer in this matter. Judge Lorna G. Schofield signed the order.