Hom v. Brennan
840 F. Supp. 2d 576
E.D.N.Y2011Background
- Horn, a pro se plaintiff, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in Nassau County; defendants included Judge Brennan, Judge Foskey, Phillips, Mehr, Pataki, and Grossman.
- Plaintiff alleged bias and due process violations by Brennan during a Nassau County Family Court action and related proceedings.
- Plaintiff claimed Phillips coerced settlement and engaged in ex parte communications; alleged conspiratorial actions with Nassau-Suffolk Law Services and others.
- Brennan recused himself in March 2003; Foskey then presided over related matters, with subsequent events including incarceration allegedly due to delays in rulings and status reports.
- Plaintiff commenced this federal action in April 2003; removal was effected by Grossman; defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on March 5, 2005; Second Circuit dismissed the appeal in January 2006; Horn moved to renew in July 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CPLR 2221(e) renewal is proper here | Horn seeks renewal under CPLR 2221(e) to relitigate | CPLR 2221(e) applies to NY courts; not proper here | Improper and meritless |
| Whether the motion should be reconsidered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6.3 or 60(b) | Motion warrants reconsideration due to new concerns | Timeliness is lacking; Rule 60(b) lacks extraordinary grounds | Untimely and denied |
| Whether 18 U.S.C. § 371 conspiracy claim is cognizable | Conspiracy to deprive rights supports relief | No civil/private right under § 371; conspiracy to defraud not shown | Denied; no civil claim under § 371 |
| Whether plaintiff is entitled to a free transcript under Griffin v. Illinois | entitlement to free transcript due to quasi-criminal nature | Griffin applies to criminal appeals; not to civil filings here | Denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Catskill Development L.L.C. v. Park Place Entertainment Corp., 204 F.Supp.2d 647 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (CPLR renewal not applicable to federal proceedings)
- Greene v. N.Y. City Hous. Auth., 283 A.D.2d 458, 724 N.Y.S.2d 631 (2d Dep’t 2001) (statutory renewal provisions require state-context mechanics)
- Aczel v. Labonia, 584 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2009) (Rule 60(b) limits and extraordinary circumstances standard)
- Truskoski v. ESPN, Inc., 60 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 1995) (motion for reconsideration must be timely and not a second bite at merits)
- Amoco Overseas Oil Co. v. Compagnie Nationale Algerienne de Navigation, 605 F.2d 648 (2d Cir. 1979) (Rule 60(b) requires timely, extraordinary relief)
- In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1 (4th Cir. 1992) (timeliness and proper vehicle for relief from judgment)
- Rodriguez v. Mitchell, 252 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2001) (Rule 60(b) relief requires timely and proper showing)
- M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996) (Griffin-type considerations limited to specific contexts)