Buy This Entire Record For
Mills v. Appellate Division Fourth Department
United States District Court, W.D. New York
March 22, 2017
RICHARD MILLS, Plaintiff,
APPELLATE DIVISION FOURTH DEPARTMENT, JUSTICE KEHOE, JUSTICE GORSKI, JUSTICE MARTOCHE, JUSTICE SMITH, JUSTICE PINE, JUSTICE EUGENE F. PIGOTT, COMMISSION OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, LAWRENCE GOLDMAN, STEVEN COFFEY, COLLEEN DIPIRRO, RICHARD EMERY, RAOUL LIONEL FELDER, CHRISTINA HERNANDEZ, THOMAS KLONICK, DAVID L1CIANO, KAREN PETERS, ALAN POPE, TERRY RUDERMAN, FRANCES CAFARELL, RANDOLPH ZICKL, ELIOT SPITZER, DEL ATWELL, Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
MICHAEL A. TELESCA United States District Judge
se inmate Richard Mills (“Plaintiff”)
instituted this action under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and 1985, alleging the existence of a conspiracy
among a number of Justices of the New York State Supreme
Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department; the New York
State Commission on Judicial Conduct and its individual
Commissioners; the Fourth Department's Assigned Counsel
Program Administrator; the Genesee County Assigned Program
Administrator; the New York State Attorney General; and
Plaintiff's court-appointed appellate counsel. According
to Plaintiff, these individuals and entities conspired to
deny him of his constitutional rights to a direct appeal from
his conviction and his constitutional right to the effective
assistance of appellate counsel.
March 7, 2006, the Court (Arcara, D.J.) issued an Order (Dkt
#25) finding that, inter alia, the Fourth Department
the named Justices were entitled to absolute judicial
immunity; that the Commissioners of the Commission on
Judicial Conduct were entitled to absolute quasi-judicial
immunity; Plaintiff failed to state any claims against the
assigned counsel program administrators; and Plaintiff's
court-appointed appellate counsel was not acting “under
color of state law” for purposes of Section 1983.
Judgment (Dkt #26) was entered in favor of the defendants on
March 8, 2006. Plaintiff's appeal to the Second Circuit
was dismissed on September 20, 2006 (Dkt #30), as lacking an
arguable basis in fact or law.
pro se papers dated July 20, 2016, Plaintiff moved
to vacate (Dkt #33) the May 10, 2004, Decision and Order
dismissing his Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b) (“Rule 60(b)”). Plaintiff also
has moved for sanctions (Dkt #37) under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11 (“Rule 11”). For the reasons
discussed below, both motions are denied.
to Rule 60(b), “[o]n motion and just terms, a court may
relieve a party or its legal representative from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding” for any of the
(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 misconduct by 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 ...