Davis v. Taylor
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-04610
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Davis v. Taylor, Judge Swain denied reconsideration but granted Davis 14 days to appeal the earlier dismissal.
William Scott Davis may pursue an appeal of the earlier dismissal by filing the required notice within 14 days, but the court denied him fee-free status for an appeal from this order. Dr. Ava Taylor and the other defendants are affected because the appeal deadline was reopened, although the court found no prejudice from doing so.
What happened
In Davis v. Taylor, William Scott Davis asked the court to reconsider its earlier order dismissing his action without prejudice under a rule limiting certain prisoner lawsuits filed without paying fees. He also asked to reopen the deadline for appealing that order.
The court denied reconsideration because Davis filed that request too late under the local rule and did not show grounds for relief under the federal rule governing relief from judgments. The court found that Davis had not received notice of the earlier order and judgment, that his request to reopen the appeal deadline was timely, and that reopening the deadline would not unfairly harm any party.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Davis’s motion to reopen the appeal deadline and required him to file the attached notice of appeal within 14 days. The court also denied fee-free status for an appeal, finding that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Davis v. Taylor · No. 1:20-cv-04610
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 29, 2024
Background
William Scott Davis filed this action without a lawyer. On March 8, 2023, the court ruled that, while incarcerated, Davis was barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from filing actions without paying the filing fee unless he faced an imminent threat of serious physical injury. The court dismissed this action without prejudice under that provision, and judgment was entered on March 9, 2023.
Davis later filed two motions. First, he sought reconsideration of the dismissal order under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), (3), (4), and (6). Second, he asked the court to reopen the time to file a notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6).
Motion for Reconsideration
The court construed Davis’s reference to Rule 6(d)(3) as a motion under Local Civil Rule 6.3. That rule required the motion to be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment. Because Davis did not meet that deadline, the court denied the motion under Local Civil Rule 6.3.
The court also denied relief under the first five grounds Davis invoked under Rule 60(b). The court concluded that, even reading his filing liberally, Davis had not shown that mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, or another listed ground applied. The court separately denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), concluding that Davis had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for that provision.
Reopening the Appeal Deadline
Rule 4(a)(6) allows a district court to reopen the time to appeal for 14 days if three conditions are met: the party did not receive timely notice of the judgment, the motion was filed within the rule’s deadline, and reopening the deadline would not prejudice another party.
The court found that Davis did not receive notice of the dismissal order and judgment within the required period. Davis stated that he was not at FCI Beckley, West Virginia, but was in Rochester, Minnesota, and the court’s electronic filing records showed that the documents were returned to the court on May 9, 2023. The court also found that Davis filed his motion within 180 days after entry of the order and judgment and that no party would be prejudiced by allowing him to challenge the dismissal order.
Disposition
The court denied Davis’s motion for reconsideration and granted his motion to reopen the time to appeal. Davis was required to file the attached notice of appeal within 14 days after the January 25, 2024 order. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of the appeal.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.