Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-02344
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital, Judge Swain denied Manko’s motion to undo the dismissal because the court lacked jurisdiction and Rule 60 relief was unwarranted.
Nella Manko remains subject to the earlier dismissal, while Lenox Hill Hospital and the other defendants are affected by the case remaining closed. Further filings under this case number are restricted as stated in the order.
What happened
In Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital, Nella Manko, representing herself, asked the court to undo the dismissal of her case and the related civil judgment. The court had dismissed her complaint because she was barred from filing a new case without first getting permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, and she had not requested that permission. The Second Circuit later dismissed her appeal, finding no arguable legal or factual basis.
The court treated Manko’s filing as a request for relief from a judgment under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It ruled that it lacked authority to consider the request because the appeals court had already rejected the relevant basis for challenging the dismissal, and Manko did not identify newly discovered evidence or later events. The court also said that, even if it had authority to consider the motion, Manko had not shown a valid reason or extraordinary circumstances for undoing the judgment.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Manko’s motion for reconsideration. The action remains closed, and the clerk was directed not to accept further filings under the case number except documents directed to the Second Circuit. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Manko permission to proceed without paying the appeal fee.
The detailed version
- Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital · No. 1:23-cv-02344
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 26, 2024
Background
Nella Manko filed this action without a lawyer. The court previously dismissed the complaint because Manko was barred from filing a new action without paying the filing fee unless she first obtained permission from the court, and she had not sought that permission. Manko appealed, but the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal because it lacked an arguable basis in law or fact.
Manko later filed a notice of motion seeking to vacate the court’s earlier dismissal order and civil judgment. The court liberally construed the filing as a motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a party to seek relief from a judgment or order for specified reasons, such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or other extraordinary circumstances.
Court’s Analysis
The court first addressed jurisdiction, meaning its legal authority to decide the motion. It explained that after an appeals court has considered and rejected the basis for a reconsideration request, the district court generally cannot grant the motion unless it relies on newly discovered evidence or later events that the appeals court did not consider. The court found that Manko’s submission did not identify such evidence or events, so it lacked jurisdiction over the motion.
The court then ruled in the alternative that the motion would be denied even if the court had jurisdiction. Manko had not shown that any of the first five grounds listed in Rule 60(b) applied. To the extent she relied on Rule 60(b)(6), the provision covering other reasons that might justify relief, she also failed to show the extraordinary circumstances required for that relief.
Disposition and Effect
The court denied Manko’s motion for reconsideration. The action is closed. The clerk was directed not to accept further submissions under the closed case number except documents directed to the Second Circuit. 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 appeal without paying the required fee.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.