Leon v. Town Board of the Town of Ramapo

Background

Vladimir Leon filed the original complaint against the Town Board of the Town of Ramapo and the East Ramapo Schools District. The court determined that the complaint failed to state a claim and gave Leon 60 days to file an amended complaint alleging facts supporting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights.

Leon did not file an amended complaint by the deadline. The court dismissed the complaint and entered judgment in October 2022. After Leon asked to reopen the action, the court vacated the earlier dismissal and judgment and gave him another 60 days to amend. When that deadline passed, the court granted a further 30-day extension and again warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal.

Leon again did not file an amended complaint. The court dismissed the complaint a second time on March 6, 2023, and entered judgment that day. In April 2023, Leon sought to proceed with an amended complaint or refile the original complaint, but he did not include a proposed amended complaint. The court declined to reopen the action but gave him one final 30-day opportunity to file an amended complaint, expressly stating that no further extensions would be granted. Leon did not file one.

Current Motion

On March 6, 2024, Leon filed a document labeled a “Motion to File a New Original Complaint.” He asserted that the proposed complaint would contain “new evidence not discovered” when he filed the original complaint and would be “more plausible.” He also made allegations concerning difficulties in New York’s lower courts, alleged bias, and alleged that the defendants exploited his children’s individualized education program to harm him and his children. The opinion states that he provided no specific facts supporting the claim of newly discovered evidence.

The court liberally construed the filing as a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule permits relief from a judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. A motion based on the first three grounds generally must be filed within one year, while relief under the rule’s final provision requires a timely motion and extraordinary circumstances.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Leon had not shown that any of the first five grounds for relief under Rule 60(b) applied. It therefore denied relief under those provisions. The court also held that Leon had not demonstrated the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). In reaching that conclusion, the court emphasized that it had given Leon numerous opportunities to file an amended complaint and that he had repeatedly failed to comply with court orders.

Disposition

The court denied Leon’s motion for reconsideration, identified as ECF 20. The action remains closed. The Clerk of Court will accept only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the court stated that it may require Leon to show why he should not be barred from filing further documents in this action if he submits documents that are frivolous or meritless. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Leon permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.