The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary L. Sharpe, United States District Judge
Plaintiff Mujahid Farid filed a civil rights complaint in which he alleged, inter alia, that his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection were violated during his appearance before the New York State Parole Board. Dkt. No. 1. By Order of this Court filed April 3, 2006, Farid's complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Dkt. No. 6 ("April Order"). On April 3, 2006, Judgment was entered against Farid dismissing this action. Dkt. No. 7.
Presently before the Court is Farid's request for relief from the Judgment entered against him. Dkt. No. 8. Farid also requests that the Court transfer this action to the Southern District of New York to "be consolidated and joined with" Graziano v. Pataki, No. 06 Civ. 0480, 2006 WL 2023082 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 17, 2006). Id. at 10.
I. Motion for Relief from Judgment
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Fed. R. Civ. P.") sets forth the following six grounds upon which the Court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
In deciding a Rule 60(b) motion "a court must balance the policy in favor of hearing a litigant's claims on the merits against the policy in favor of finality." Kotlicky v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 817 F.2d 6, 9 (2d. Cir. 1987); see also Welkovics v. Hebrew Academy of the Capital District, No. 93-CV-1465, 1995 WL 760726 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 1995) (McAvoy, J.). However, as set forth in Rule 60(b), the Court may, in its discretion, grant reconsideration for "any other reason justifying relief". Rule 60(b)(6).
Farid contends that, in light of a change of law, Judgment should be vacated and his action should be allowed to proceed. Farid points to Graziano,*fn1 and Matter of Coaxum v. New York State Board of Parole,*fn2 No. 2470/2005, 2006 WL 3524328, at *8 (Sup. Ct. Sep. 8, 2006). Without addressing the merits of Plaintiff's claims with respect to Graziano or Matter of Coaxum, or any of Plaintiff's other claims, the Court will grant Plaintiff's request to vacate the Judgment, restore the case to the active docket, and direct service of the complaint. The Court makes no findings on the merits of any of Farid's claims at this time.
Because the action is re-opened, the Court has reviewed Farid's in forma pauperis application (Dkt. No. 2), and finds that Farid may proceed in forma pauperis.
II. Motion to Transfer and for Joinder
Plaintiff asks the Court to transfer this action to the Southern District of New York to "be consolidated and joined with a case bringing identical and similar issues before Judge Charles L. Brieant in the Federal District Court of the Southern District of New York." Dkt. No. 8 at 10. Plaintiff's request is denied at this time.
ORDERED, that petitioner's motion for relief from Judgment (Dkt. No. 8) is ...