Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-09928
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital, Judge Swain denied Manko’s reconsideration motion and ordered her to explain why future filings should not be barred.
Nella Manko’s request to reopen the dismissed action and file an amended complaint was denied. She was also required to show cause within 30 days why future submissions in this action should not be barred, except a notice of appeal.
What happened
In Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital, Nella Manko asked the court to undo its earlier denial of reconsideration, reopen the case, and let her file an amended complaint. The court had previously dismissed the action, and the Court of Appeals had dismissed Manko’s appeals.
The court denied Manko’s motion under both the local reconsideration rule and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). It found that the local-rule motion was filed too late and that Manko had not shown a valid reason or extraordinary circumstances for relief under Rule 60(b). The court also directed her to explain within 30 days why she should not be barred from filing future submissions in this action, except a notice of appeal.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain warned that failure to provide good cause could result in a filing bar. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
The detailed version
- Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital · No. 1:20-cv-09928
- Laura Swain
- July 6, 2023
Background
Nella Manko filed this action without a lawyer in November 2020. On July 2, 2021, the court dismissed the complaint based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and failure to state a claim. Judgment was entered the same day. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later dismissed Manko’s appeal.
Manko then filed a lengthy submission asking the court to vacate the dismissal and judgment, restore the action, and allow her to file an amended complaint. The court treated that submission as a motion for reconsideration and denied it on July 5, 2022. Manko appealed again, and the Court of Appeals dismissed that appeal because it lacked an arguable basis in law or fact.
On July 5, 2023, Manko filed another lengthy submission asking the court to vacate the July 5, 2022 order, restore the action, and permit an amended complaint. The court treated the submission as both a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
Rulings on Reconsideration
The court denied the motion under Local Civil Rule 6.3 because Manko did not file it within the required 14-day period after the court denied her earlier reconsideration motion. The court explained that reconsideration is limited and requires a showing that the court overlooked controlling law or facts previously presented.
The court also denied the motion under Rule 60(b). It found that Manko had not shown that any of the grounds in Rule 60(b)(1) through (5) applied, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct by an opposing party, a void judgment, or satisfaction or reversal of the judgment. The court separately denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), finding that Manko had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances. The order did not reopen the case or authorize an amended complaint.
Order to Show Cause and Disposition
The court noted that Manko had previously been barred from filing new actions without paying filing fees and obtaining permission to file. It also noted its prior warnings about repetitive or frivolous filings. Because Manko filed the new motion despite those warnings, the court directed her to submit, within 30 days, a declaration showing good cause why she should not be barred from filing future submissions in this action, except a notice of appeal.
The court stated that if Manko failed to submit the declaration, or failed to show good cause, it would bar her from filing future submissions in this action, except a notice of appeal. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The final disposition was: Manko’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.