Whitaker v. New York University, 543 F. App'x 113

Whitaker, pro se, appeals a district court summary judgment in favor of NYU entered July 2011.
Whitaker moved for relief under Rule 60(b) on June 20, 2012, seeking to relitigate issues already decided.
The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion, and Whitaker appealed to the Second Circuit.
The Second Circuit reviews Rule 60(b) denials for abuse of discretion and applies an extraordinary relief standard.
Court holds the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion, and affirms.
Evidence Whitaker proffered was not newly discovered and could have been in the record at summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion denying Rule 60(b).	Whitaker contends the motion showed exceptional circumstances.	NYU asserts no abuse, issues relitigated with no new basis.	No abuse; denial affirmed.
Whether the Rule 60(b)(2) newly discovered-evidence standard was satisfied.	Whitaker claims newly discovered materials justify relief.	Evidence was available earlier and not new.	Not satisfied; evidence not newly discovered.

Johnson ex rel. United States v. Univ. of Rochester Med. Ctr., 642 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2011) (standard for abuse of discretion in Rule 60(b) appeals)
Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2008) (Rule 60(b) extraordinary relief requires exceptional circumstances)
Paddington Partners v. Bourchard, 34 F.3d 1132 (2d Cir. 1994) (clarifies rule for extraordinary relief under Rule 60(b))
Zerman v. Jacobs, 751 F.2d 82 (2d Cir. 1984) (relitigation limitations under Rule 60(b))
Boule v. Hutton, 328 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2003) (newly discovered evidence standard in Rule 60(b)(2))
ISC Holding AG v. Nobel Biocare Finance AG, 688 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2012) (Rule 60(b)(6) relief available after other subsections fail)