Jackson v. Warner Music Group Corp.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOUAN JACKSON, Plaintiff, 1:23-CV-10100 (LTS) -against- ORDER WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP., et al., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: By order and judgment issued and entered on June 11, 2024, the Court dismissed this pro se action for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. (ECF 12 & 13.) On July 15, 2024, 34 days later, Plaintiff filed a 247-page motion seeking relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 60(b)”). (ECF 14.) The Court thus understands Plaintiff’s motion as seeking relief from the Court’s June 11, 2024 order and judgment, brought under Rule 60(b). See Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101 (2d Cir. 2010) (“The solicitude afforded to pro se litigants takes a variety of forms. . . . [including] liberal construction of papers . . . relaxation of the limitations on the amendment of pleadings, leniency in the enforcement of other procedural rules, and deliberate, continuing efforts to ensure that a pro se litigant understands what is required of him.” (citations omitted)). After reviewing Plaintiff’s arguments, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion. DISCUSSION Under Rule 60(b), a party may seek relief from a district court’s final order or judgment for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The Court has considered Plaintiff’s arguments, but even under a liberal interpretation of his motion, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that any of the grounds listed in the first five clauses of Rule 60(b) apply. The Court therefore denies Plaintiff Rule 60(b) relief, to the extent that he seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(1) through (5). In addition, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(6), the Court also denies that relief. “[A] Rule 60(b)(6) motion must be based upon some reason other than those stated in clauses (1)-(5).” United Airlines, Inc. v. Brien, 588 F.3d 158, 175 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Smith v. Sec’y of HHS, 776 F.2d 1330, 1333 (6th Cir. 1985) (internal quotation marks omitted)). A Rule 60(b)(6) motion must show both that the motion was filed within a “‘reasonable time’” and that “‘extraordinary circumstances’ [exist] to warrant relief.” Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Pac. Fin. Servs. of Am., Inc., 301 F.3d 54, 59 (2d Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Plaintiff does not demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199-202 (1950). The Court therefore denies Plaintiff relief under Rule 60(b)(6). CONCLUSION The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for Rule 60(b) relief. (ECF 14.) This action is closed. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to accept for filing in this action only those documents that are directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. If Plaintiff files other documents in this action that are frivolous or meritless, the Court will direct him to show cause why the Court should not bar him from filing further documents in this action. The Court certifies, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would

not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: September 30, 2024 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge