Stinson v. CUNY
- Louis Stanton
- 1:21-cv-06942
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Stinson v. CUNY, Judge Stanton denied Marcus Stinson’s request to undo earlier orders and left the case closed.
Marcus Stinson’s motion was denied; the case remains closed, and the March 10, 2022 restriction on filing certain future actions without court permission was not vacated.
What happened
In Stinson v. CUNY, Marcus Stinson asked the court to undo its March 10, 2022 order restricting future employment-related lawsuits against CUNY and its employees. He also asked to undo a 2018 ruling from a separate case.
The court treated Stinson’s letter as a request for relief from a judgment or order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The court had dismissed this action as barred by claim preclusion and had imposed the filing restriction after noting Stinson’s other employment-discrimination and retaliation cases involving CUNY. Stinson filed his request nearly two years after the filing restriction was entered.
Judge Louis L. Stanton denied the motion because it was untimely and did not show any listed basis or extraordinary circumstances required for relief. The court said any request concerning the 2018 ruling had to be made in that separate case, left this action closed, and directed the clerk not to accept further filings under this case number except papers directed to the Court of Appeals.
The detailed version
- Stinson v. CUNY · No. 1:21-cv-06942
- Louis Stanton
- Feb. 28, 2024
Background
Marcus Stinson, representing himself, sued CUNY, City University Construction Fund, Sonia Pearson, and Pamela Silverblatt. In an earlier order, the court dismissed this action as barred by claim preclusion, a rule generally preventing a party from relitigating claims that were previously resolved. The court also ordered Stinson to explain why it should not restrict his ability to file future actions in the court concerning employment discrimination and retaliation against CUNY and its employees arising from his prior employment at CUNY.
After reviewing Stinson’s response, the court entered a March 10, 2022 order under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 barring him from filing such future actions in the court without first obtaining permission. Stinson appealed, but the Court of Appeals granted his request to withdraw the appeal.
Motion for relief
In February 2024, Stinson filed a letter asking the court to vacate the March 10, 2022 filing restriction. He also asked the court to vacate or set aside a June 6, 2018 ruling in an earlier related proceeding. The court liberally construed the filing as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits a court to grant relief from a judgment or order for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or other circumstances justifying relief.
Requests based on the first three grounds must be filed within one year. A request under Rule 60(b)(6), the provision for other justifying reasons, must be filed within a reasonable time and requires extraordinary circumstances. It cannot be used to avoid the one-year limit for the first three grounds.
Ruling
The court denied the motion for reconsideration. It held that Stinson filed the motion one year and eleven months after the order he sought to vacate, making the request untimely. The court further held that, even if the motion had been timely, Stinson had not shown that any of the first five Rule 60(b) grounds applied or that extraordinary circumstances justified relief under Rule 60(b)(6). He also presented no legal or factual matters calling the dismissal of this action into question.
As to the 2018 ruling, the court stated that Stinson had to make the appropriate request in that separate case. The court left this action closed and directed the clerk not to accept further submissions under this case number except papers directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.