Reid v. City of New York

Background

Cedric Reid, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New York, the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, and seven officials employed by the New York State Commission of Correction and Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. He alleged violations of his constitutional rights to humane confinement conditions and adequate medical care under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Reid’s motion concerned only the dismissal of claims arising from his alleged exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at Downstate Correctional Facility and Sing Sing Correctional Facility. He alleged that he did not smoke, had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma, and was exposed to constant smoking by other inmates in poorly ventilated areas. He also alleged shortness of breath, chest pains, and lung inflammation, and said he sent complaints about the exposure and his health to state officials.

The court had previously adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed Reid’s amended complaint with prejudice. The earlier dismissal rested mainly on Reid’s failure to adequately allege the severity and duration of his personal exposure to secondhand smoke and his failure to allege facts showing that the state officials knew of and deliberately disregarded an excessive risk to his health.

Reid’s Rule 60(b) Motion

Reid sought relief from the earlier order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), (b)(3), and (b)(6). Rule 60(b) permits a court, in limited circumstances, to provide relief from a final judgment or order. The court concluded that Reid’s arguments were best understood as alleging judicial mistake or neglect, which falls under Rule 60(b)(1). Because that ground applied, Reid could not also rely on Rule 60(b)(6), which is available only when the other listed grounds do not apply. The court also found that Reid did not allege fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by the defendants, so Rule 60(b)(3) did not apply.

Reasons for Denial

The court held that the motion was not filed within a reasonable time. Although it was dated one day before the one-year deadline applicable to a Rule 60(b)(1) motion, the court explained that a motion filed nearly a year after the order carries a high burden of justification. Reid gave no reason for the delay, so the court found the motion untimely.

The court also held that the motion improperly served as a substitute for a timely appeal. Reid had not objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation and gave no justification for that failure. The court therefore concluded that he could not use Rule 60(b) to raise arguments that should have been presented through objections or an appeal.

The court further determined that the motion failed on the merits. Reid’s arguments about completing administrative exhaustion and needing discovery did not address the reasons for the earlier dismissal. The court had not dismissed the claims for failure to exhaust, and the earlier decision had accepted Reid’s allegations about his medical conditions and injuries as true for purposes of deciding the dismissal motions. The court said the dismissal instead concerned the lack of sufficient allegations about Reid’s personal smoke exposure and the officials’ deliberate indifference.

The court also rejected Reid’s arguments that his amended complaint had not been read liberally and that his letters showed officials knew about his conditions and exposure. It stated that the prior decision had liberally construed his filings, and that the letters showed no more than negligence rather than the knowing disregard or deliberate indifference required for his claims. Because Reid did not show exceptional circumstances warranting relief, the court denied the Rule 60(b) motion.

Disposition

The court denied Reid’s Rule 60(b) motion and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion and mail Reid a copy of the decision and docket sheet.