Tolliver v. Jordan

Background

Eric Tolliver, representing himself, filed the action on December 20, 2019. The court previously granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part. On March 28, 2023, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied Tolliver’s motion for summary judgment. Tolliver appealed that order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and then asked the district court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) to set it aside. The Second Circuit stayed the appeal while the district court considered the motion.

Rule 60(b)(1) standard

Rule 60(b)(1) permits relief from a final order or judgment for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. The court explained that the moving party must provide highly convincing evidence, show good cause for not acting sooner, and show that reopening the matter would not cause undue hardship to the other parties. The court also stated that this extraordinary remedy cannot substitute for an appeal or be used simply to relitigate issues already decided.

Tolliver’s arguments

Tolliver challenged the court’s finding that the record did not show a causal connection between his protected speech and his transfer from Sullivan to Attica Correctional Facility. The court said the record showed that his grievances were filed after the transfer process had begun and that the evidence did not support an inference that the defendants knew about his Court of Claims lawsuit or that the lawsuit affected the transfer. The court also said the record conclusively showed that the defendants were not personally involved in the transfer.

Tolliver also argued that the court had incorrectly stated that he did not identify the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision official to whom he gave his lawsuit paperwork. The court found that point immaterial because the record showed that the transfer-review process began on the same date Tolliver signed and mailed the lawsuit, while the filing was not received by the Attorney General’s Office until two days later. The court characterized Tolliver’s claim that the defendants therefore must have known about the lawsuit as speculation.

Finally, Tolliver argued that the court should have reviewed disciplinary-hearing tapes because he had allegedly put the defendants on notice of his intent to sue. The defendants had submitted an independently prepared transcript of the tapes. The court noted that Tolliver had not previously claimed that the transcript was inadequate or raised a concern about missing discovery when he had the opportunity to do so. It further found that the tapes were not newly discovered evidence because submitting the tapes instead of the transcript would not have changed the outcome.

Ruling

Judge Philip M. Halpern denied Tolliver’s motion to vacate. The court held that Tolliver had not produced the highly convincing evidence required under Rule 60(b) and was repeating arguments already raised and rejected in the summary-judgment decision. Because of its ruling, the court did not address the separate requirements of good cause and undue hardship. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion and send a copy of the order to the Second Circuit.