Smith v. Byrne, 2:14-cv-00020

Plaintiff Peter M. Smith, pro se, sued two DOC officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging they revealed his confidential identity and caused him fear/abuse; defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal with leave to amend because of sovereign immunity for official-capacity claims, lack of personal involvement allegations, no physical injury under PLRA, and insufficient Eighth Amendment allegations.
Court adopted the Report and Recommendation and granted leave to amend; Smith did not file an amended complaint and judgment dismissing the case was entered on March 9, 2015.
Smith notified the court twice of a Burlington address while temporarily released; he later was reincarcerated but did not file a formal change-of-address notice after reincarceration.
Nearly one year after dismissal Smith wrote that he had “just found out” about the judgment and requested reinstatement and appointment of counsel; the court construed the letter as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment.
Magistrate Judge Conroy recommended denial of Rule 60(b) relief and denial of counsel: Smith failed to show excusable neglect or any other extraordinary circumstance warranting relief and had a duty to monitor the case and notify the court of address changes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(b) relief is warranted for Smith's failure to learn of the dismissal	Smith claims he only "just found out" about dismissal and seeks relief as inadvertence/mistake	Implicitly: court need not grant relief absent exceptional circumstances or excusable neglect	Denied – Smith failed to show excusable neglect or exceptional circumstances; his brief notice of reincarceration was insufficient and he had duty to monitor case
Whether Smith’s failure to notify court of address change excuses missing the judgment	Smith points to reincarceration as cause for not learning of dismissal	Court: parties (even pro se inmates) must keep the court informed of address changes; a passing note in an objection was insufficient under Local Rule 11(c)	Denied – Smith bore responsibility to update address and follow the case
Whether appointment of counsel should be ordered	Smith requested appointed counsel to proceed	Court previously denied counsel and found no basis to revisit that denial	Denied – motion for counsel denied and would be moot if Rule 60(b) is denied

Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986) (Rule 60(b) balances finality and justice; relief is extraordinary)
Stevens v. Miller, 676 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2012) (motions premised on mistake should not be recast as Rule 60(b)(6))
Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co., [citation="385 F. App'x 29"] (2d Cir. 2010) (Rule 60(b) motions are disfavored)
Ben Sager Chems. Int’l Inc. v. E. Targosz & Co., 560 F.2d 805 (7th Cir. 1977) (extraordinary relief standard for Rule 60(b))
Marrero Pichardo v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2004) (reconsideration/Rule 60(b) requires exceptional circumstances)
Maldonado v. Local 803 I.B. of T. Health & Welfare Fund, [citation="490 F. App'x 405"] (2d Cir. 2013) (Rule 60(b) cannot be used to relitigate decided issues)
Zerman v. Jacobs, 751 F.2d 82 (2d Cir. 1984) (reiterating limits on relitigation via Rule 60(b))
Small v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989) (failure to object timely to a magistrate’s report waives further review)