Reid v. The City of New York

Background

Cedric Reid sued the City of New York, city and district-attorney officials, the New York County District Attorney’s Office, and others over the use of recorded telephone calls he made while detained at the Vernon C. Bain Correctional Center. He alleged that prosecutors obtained recordings of his calls and used some of them at his criminal trial. He also asserted claims concerning an alleged unauthorized use of his personal identification number and unsuccessful requests for records under New York’s Freedom of Information Law.

In a July 27, 2022 Opinion and Order, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint and dismissed all of Reid’s claims. Those claims included constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, failure-to-train claims against the City, and a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). The case was closed.

Almost one year later, Reid moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) for relief from that order based on allegedly newly discovered evidence. He also requested permission under Rule 15(a)(2) to file a proposed second amended complaint.

Rule 60(b)(2) Motion

Rule 60(b)(2) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment or order based on evidence that could not have been discovered in time to seek a new trial. The court explained that the evidence must have existed at the time of the earlier proceeding, that the party must have been reasonably unaware of it despite reasonable efforts, that it must be admissible and important enough to probably change the result, and that it cannot merely repeat or attack evidence already presented.

Reid relied on three categories of documents: a letter and report identifying four subpoenas issued by the District Attorney’s Office for phone recordings, phone logs, and visitor logs; the declaration of Assistant District Attorney Robin McCabe; and the Department of Correction’s operations order concerning inmate telephone calls.

The court found that none of these documents qualified as newly discovered evidence. The letter and report and the operations order had been attached to Reid’s opposition to the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The McCabe Declaration had been submitted with the District Attorney’s Office Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court therefore concluded that the materials were available and had been considered before the July 2022 dismissal. It held that Reid could not have been reasonably unaware of them when the earlier order was issued and denied his Rule 60(b)(2) motion.

Motion to Amend

The court also denied Reid’s request to file a second amended complaint. It explained that, ordinarily, a court should not consider amendment of a complaint unless there is a valid basis to set aside the earlier judgment. The court nevertheless reviewed the proposed amendments and found them futile, meaning they could not support a legally viable complaint.

The court stated that adding documents supporting some factual allegations did not cure the proposed complaint’s legal problems. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court evaluates whether the allegations are legally sufficient rather than weighing evidence that might later support them.

The proposed complaint also sought to add Amy Hare, a former assistant district attorney assigned to Reid’s case. Reid had previously referred to Hare’s alleged involvement in a pretrial search and seizure of his recorded calls. The court concluded that the proposed claims concerned actions Hare took as a prosecutor and that prosecutorial immunity barred the claims against her in her official capacity. The court therefore found the proposed amendments futile and denied leave to file the proposed second amended complaint.

Disposition

The court denied Reid’s motion for relief from the July 2022 dismissal under Rule 60(b)(2) and denied his accompanying request for leave to file a second amended complaint under Rule 15(a)(2). The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion and mail Reid a copy of the Opinion.