Gulifield v. Miller
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:18-cv-02411
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Gulifield v. Miller, Judge Seibel denied Jashaad Gulifield’s request to file late objections and undo the judgment because he did not update his address.
Jashaad Gulifield, whose request to file late objections and obtain relief from the existing judgment was denied; the order also denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.
What happened
In Gulifield v. Miller, Jashaad Gulifield asked to file objections late after learning that he had not received the report and recommendation because he had been released from Green Haven Correctional Facility. The court had adopted that report and entered judgment in May 2022.
The court said the request was governed by Rule 60, which allows limited relief from a final judgment. It found that the request came too late for the rule covering mistake or excusable neglect, and that Gulifield’s failure to update his address and inquire about the case did not qualify as excusable neglect. The court also found that the provision allowing relief for other exceptional reasons could not be used to avoid those time limits and that an 18-month delay was unreasonable.
Judge Seibel denied the motion. She also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee.
The detailed version
- Gulifield v. Miller · No. 7:18-cv-02411
- Cathy Seibel
- Dec. 15, 2023
Background
Jashaad Gulifield was the petitioner in a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A report and recommendation was issued on April 15, 2022. Although Gulifield had previously given the court an address at Downstate Correctional Facility, the magistrate judge determined from the New York State inmate database that he was housed at Green Haven Correctional Facility and sent the report and recommendation there. No objections were filed, the court adopted the report and recommendation on May 11, 2022, and judgment was entered on May 16, 2022.
Gulifield later sought permission to file objections after the deadline. He said he had been released from Green Haven on April 19, 2022, and therefore never received the report and recommendation. The court noted that he did not tell the court where he was living or ask about the case until 18 months later, about six weeks after he had been re-arrested and confined at the Rockland County Jail. The court also noted that he had previously been told to keep the court informed of his address and had provided updated addresses twice, although his last update was in 2018.
Court’s analysis
Because judgment had already been entered, the court treated the request as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule provides limited ways to obtain relief from a final judgment, including for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1), and for other exceptional reasons under Rule 60(b)(6). The court gave Gulifield special consideration because he was representing himself.
The court rejected relief under Rule 60(b)(1) for two independent reasons. First, the request was filed after the one-year deadline for that type of motion. Second, the court concluded that Gulifield’s failure to update his address, combined with his failure to inquire about the case for 18 months, did not constitute excusable neglect.
The court also rejected Rule 60(b)(6) relief. It explained that this provision cannot be used when the asserted grounds fit within a more specific subsection such as Rule 60(b)(1), or to avoid Rule 60(b)(1)’s deadline. In addition, even if Rule 60(b)(6) applied, the court found that Gulifield had not shown that waiting 18 months was a reasonable time or adequately explained why he did not contact the court sooner.
Ruling
Judge Cathy Seibel denied the motion. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The Clerk was directed to send copies of the order and specified earlier filings to Gulifield at two listed addresses.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.