Martinez v. 1906-08 Amethyst Construction Corp., 1:24-cv-00448

Plaintiff Richard Martinez, proceeding pro se, initially filed a lawsuit against his landlord, 1906-08 Amethyst Construction Corp.
The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in May 2024, following a reported agreement between the parties.
Approximately eight months later, Martinez sought to reopen the case, alleging the defendant failed to comply with the agreement.
Plaintiff submitted a "Request to Restore and Reconsider Reopening the Case," as well as several motions and affirmations.
The Court construed Martinez's filings as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the earlier order of dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Relief under Rule 60(b) justified	Defendant failed to meet agreement terms after dismissal	Not directly stated; implicitly opposed reopening	Plaintiff failed to meet any of Rule 60(b)'s grounds
Existence of extraordinary circumstances	Defendant’s noncompliance is sufficient for reopening	Not directly stated	Plaintiff did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances
Reconsideration of dismissal	The case should be restored to the docket due to defendant’s actions	Not directly stated	The case remains closed; no adequate justification to reopen
In forma pauperis for appeal	Not stated	Not stated	Any appeal would not be in good faith; in forma pauperis denied

Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (pro se filings are to be construed liberally)
United Airlines, Inc. v. Brien, 588 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2009) (Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances for relief)
Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Pac. Fin. Servs. of America, Inc., 301 F.3d 54 (2d Cir. 2002) (extraordinary circumstances needed for Rule 60(b)(6) relief)
Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1950) (failure to show extraordinary circumstances precludes Rule 60(b) relief)
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (standard for denying in forma pauperis status on appeal)