Rudolph v. The Department of Justice
2:19-cv-06661-AMD-LB
| E.D.N.Y | Jan 24, 2022Background
- Pro se plaintiff Ernest Rudolph sued the Department of Justice on November 26, 2019.
- Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend on January 23, 2020; Rudolph did not amend.
- Court dismissed the case with prejudice on March 16, 2020; judgment entered March 24, 2020.
- Rudolph filed a reconsideration motion on June 4, 2020 (denied December 16, 2020) and submitted another letter on December 28, 2021 construed as a further motion for reconsideration.
- The December 2021 letter complained about mental-health treatment and ongoing harassment, sought monetary damages and an investigation within three months.
- Court denied the construed motion: Rule 60(b) relief not warranted, the Rule 59 deadline had passed, case remains closed, plaintiff warned about future filings, and in forma pauperis status for appeal was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the December 28, 2021 letter justifies relief under Rule 60(b) | Rudolph asked the Court to reconsider and investigate alleged harassment and mental-health mistreatment and sought damages | DOJ did not present arguments in the order; court treated letter on its merits against Rule 60(b) standards | Denied — plaintiff failed to show exceptional circumstances or other grounds under Rule 60(b) |
| Whether relief is available under Rule 59 | Rudolph sought to alter the judgment via his letter | Rule 59 requires a motion within 28 days of judgment; plaintiff filed well after deadline | Denied — untimely under Rule 59(e) |
| Whether the Court should reopen the case or order an investigation | Rudolph requested investigation and monetary relief within three months | No basis in the submission to reopen or direct investigative relief | Denied — letter did not justify reopening or court action |
| Whether to allow further filings and in forma pauperis status on appeal | Rudolph continued filing post-closure and paid filing fee initially | Court may restrict future filings and may deny IFP on appeal if appeal not in good faith | Court warned it will bar similar filings; certified any appeal would not be in good faith and denied IFP for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986) (Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary and requires exceptional circumstances)
- Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2008) (Rule 60(b) is available only upon demonstration of exceptional circumstances)
- Maldonado v. Local 803 I.B. of Tr. Health & Welfare Fund, [citation="490 F. App'x 405"] (2d Cir. 2013) (Rule 60(b) motion should not be used to relitigate decided issues)
- Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (reconsideration requires the movant to point to controlling decisions or data the court overlooked)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (standard for determining whether an appeal is taken in forma pauperis in good faith)