Gunn v. Annucci
- 7:19-cv-10039
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gunn v. Annucci, the court denied Darrell Gunn’s Rule 60(b)(1) motion as untimely and without merit.
Darrell Gunn, whose motion to reconsider the July 21, 2021 judgment was denied; the defendants were not granted any new relief in this order.
What happened
In Gunn v. Annucci, Darrell Gunn asked the court to reconsider and set aside the July 21, 2021 judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). He argued that mistakes or excusable neglect affected when he filed his claims after completing the prison grievance process.
The court said the motion was too late because Rule 60(b)(1) requires filing within one year after judgment. The court also said the motion lacked merit because the claims were barred by the three-year time limit, which began when the alleged injuries occurred—not when the grievance process ended.
The court denied the motion in Gunn v. Annucci. The opinion does not identify the judge by name; the court directed the clerk to send Gunn a copy of the ruling and terminate docket entry 48.
The detailed version
- Gunn v. Annucci · No. 7:19-cv-10039
- Jan. 3, 2024
Background
Darrell Gunn moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) to reconsider and set aside the judgment entered on July 21, 2021. His filing referred to mistakes, inadvertence, or excusable neglect concerning the exhaustion of grievance complaint GH-79334-15. Gunn argued that the grievance process ended on November 2, 2016, and that he filed his claim on October 25, 2019, within three years of that date.
Court’s reasoning
The court denied the motion for two reasons. First, Rule 60(b)(1) motions must be filed within one year after entry of judgment. Because the judgment was entered on July 21, 2021, the court found Gunn’s motion untimely.
Second, the court said the motion was without merit. It rejected Gunn’s lack of awareness of the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s exhaustion requirement as a basis for relief, explaining that ignorance of the law generally is not an excuse. More importantly, the court clarified that exhaustion was not what barred Gunn’s claims. The claims were dismissed because Gunn did not sue within the three-year statute of limitations. The limitations period began on the date of the injury, not on the date of the grievance-review decision by the Central Office Review Committee.
Disposition
In Gunn v. Annucci, the court denied Gunn’s motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(1). The court directed the clerk to send Gunn a copy of the ruling at the address listed in his filing and to terminate docket entry 48.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.