Farrow v. Cordez

Background

Justin Farrow, who was incarcerated at Auburn Correctional Facility and represented himself, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at several facilities operated by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. Many of the events occurred outside the Southern District of New York. The court previously severed and transferred claims arising at Attica, Clinton, and Great Meadow Correctional Facilities to other federal districts.

The court later gave Farrow 60 days to file an amended complaint concerning claims arising between 2019 and 2021 at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, which is within this district. After Farrow did not file an amended complaint, the court dismissed the action on January 18, 2023, and entered judgment.

Motion to Reopen

Farrow moved under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to vacate the dismissal and judgment and reopen the case. He stated that he had not received the order requiring him to amend his complaint. He also contended that defendants were interfering with his legal mail by returning it to the sender while falsely claiming that he had refused it.

The motion was received by the court on February 17, 2023, 29 days after judgment was entered on January 19, 2023. The court applied the prisoner-mailbox rule, under which a prisoner’s filing is treated as filed when the prisoner gives it to prison officials for mailing. Because the motion was dated January 27, 2023, the court assumed Farrow gave it to prison officials on that date and found the motion timely under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). The court therefore could decide the motion despite Farrow’s notice of appeal.

The court acknowledged that the order to amend had not been returned as undeliverable. Nevertheless, it credited Farrow’s statement that he had not received the order. Because the court had not known that Farrow had not received the order when it dismissed the action for failure to amend, it found that relief from the dismissal and judgment was warranted.

Ruling

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Farrow’s motion under Rules 59(e) and 60(b). The court directed the Clerk of Court to vacate the order of dismissal and judgment and reopen the matter. It gave Farrow 60 days from the date of the order to submit an amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, captioned “Amended Complaint” and labeled with docket number 22-CV-5952 (LTS).

The court stated that no summons would issue at that time. It further stated that if Farrow failed to file the amended complaint or seek an extension within the permitted period, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee for purposes of an appeal.