Muzumala v. The City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-08423
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Muzumala v. City of New York, Judge Swain denied Muzumala’s extension request as untimely because the Rule 59(e) deadline could not be extended.
Jacob Muzumala’s request for more time to seek reconsideration was denied. The order also denied him fee-free appeal status for an appeal from this order; the opinion does not identify any additional effect on the defendants.
What happened
In Muzumala v. The City of New York, Jacob Muzumala, representing himself, asked for more time to seek reconsideration of the court’s October 10, 2023 dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim.
The court explained that reconsideration requests under the applicable local rule had to be filed within 14 days, while a request to change the judgment under Rule 59(e) had to be filed within 28 days. The court said it could not extend the Rule 59(e) deadline, and Muzumala filed his request on January 14, 2024, after that deadline had passed.
The court denied Muzumala’s motion for an extension of time as untimely. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for that purpose.
The detailed version
- Muzumala v. The City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-08423
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 18, 2024
Background
Jacob Muzumala filed the action without a lawyer. On October 10, 2023, the court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted and entered judgment the same day.
On January 14, 2024, Muzumala filed a motion under Local Civil Rule 6.3 seeking an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration of the October 10 dismissal order. He stated that he had been working diligently on papers in two other cases filed in the court while managing full-time employment.
Court’s analysis
The court treated the motion as arising under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). It explained that the two provisions apply the same standards. A Local Rule 6.3 motion must be filed within 14 days after the court’s determination or, when the order results in a judgment, within 14 days after judgment is entered. A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed within 28 days after judgment is entered.
The court further explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2) prohibits a court from extending the time to act under Rule 59(e). Because judgment was entered on October 10, 2023, and Muzumala did not file his extension motion until January 14, 2024—after the 28-day Rule 59(e) period had expired—the court concluded that the motion was untimely.
Ruling
The court denied Muzumala’s motion for an extension of time to file a reconsideration motion under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3 as untimely. The order did not decide whether the original dismissal was correct; it addressed only the timing of the requested extension.
The court noted that Muzumala may seek relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which provides certain grounds for relief from an order or judgment. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for that purpose.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.