Harris v. The City of New York

Background

The plaintiffs brought claims against the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, and various law-enforcement officials under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. The opinion states that at least some claims appeared to be brought for Salaha-din Elazar Harris and Elijah Joabe Harris, whom the court called the “Harris Brothers.” Because people representing themselves generally may not litigate claims belonging to others, the court ordered the plaintiffs to retain counsel and warned that those claims could be dismissed if they were not brought by an attorney.

The plaintiffs then asked the court to appoint free legal counsel. On September 11, 2023, the court denied that request because the underlying claims did not appear sufficiently substantial to warrant appointing an attorney. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on October 6, 2023, invoking Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Legal standard and analysis

The court held that Local Civil Rule 6.3, rather than Rule 59(e), supplied the deadline for reconsidering the order denying appointed counsel. Local Rule 6.3 required the motion to be served within 14 days after the original decision. The deadline was September 25, 2023, but the plaintiffs filed their motion on October 6, 2023. The court therefore denied the motion as untimely.

The court nevertheless considered the motion’s substance because the plaintiffs were representing themselves. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally requiring an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent serious unfairness. The plaintiffs principally argued that they had paid the filing fees and were not proceeding without paying fees. The court found that fact unrelated to its prior conclusion that the claims were unlikely to be substantial enough to justify appointed counsel.

The court reiterated concerns about whether the plaintiffs could bring claims for the Harris Brothers, whether claims against prosecutors might be barred by absolute immunity, and whether claims based on events occurring more than two decades earlier might be barred by the statute of limitations. It also cited the lack of a constitutional right to an adequate police investigation. Because the plaintiffs identified none of the grounds required for reconsideration, the court separately denied the motion on the merits.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the motion for reconsideration. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and mail the order to the plaintiffs. In light of their status as self-represented litigants, the court gave them an additional 60 days from entry of the order to locate counsel for claims on behalf of the Harris Brothers that they could not properly bring themselves. The plaintiffs were ordered to file a status letter by December 11, 2023, concerning their efforts to locate counsel and otherwise prosecute the case.