Case ID: f-appx_472/html/0055-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles E. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles S. HIRSCH, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-4817-pr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    July 2, 2012.
    Charles E. Washington, Fallsburg, NY, pro se.
    No appearance for Appellee.
    PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, RALPH K. WINTER, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . The letter request of the New York City Law Department that its appearance for Charles S. Hirsch be stricken is granted.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Charles Washington appeals pro se from the denial of his motion pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) for relief from the 1996 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his 1995 state murder conviction. We review the denial of such a motion for abuse of discretion, see Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 561 F.3d 123, 126 (2d Cir.2009), and where, as here, a plaintiff proceeds pro se, we afford his submissions special solicitude, see Sledge v. Kooi, 564 F.3d 105, 109 (2d Cir.2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

We affirm the denial of Washington’s Rule 60(b) motion for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough and well reasoned order. See Washington v. Hirsch, No. 95-CV-2167 (JG)CLP), 2011 WL 4711879 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2011). As the district court concluded, Washington has failed to show that the motion, filed more than fifteen years after the challenged dismissal, was filed “within a reasonable time.” Fed R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Moreover, the district court correctly concluded that Washington has provided no basis for reopening under Rule 60(b), whether under any of the specific grounds provided in Rule 60(b)(1)-(5), or for extraordinary circumstances under Rule 60(b)(6).

Washington’s motion for “summary judgment” on the ground that Appellee failed to file a brief is denied. See Chao v. Russell P. Le Frois Builder, Inc., 291 F.3d 219, 226 (2d Cir.2002) (observing that sole sanction for failure to file appellee brief is inability to be heard at oral argument absent permission of court).

Washington also asks that this Court convert his motion for reconsideration into a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because a prior habeas corpus petition attacking Washington’s conviction has already been filed and denied, see Washington v. Walsh, No. 01-CV-250 (JG), 2002 WL 2003207 (E.D.N.Y. Aug.1, 2002), appeal dismissed, No. 02-2694 (2d Cir. Feb. 28, 2003), a second habeas corpus petition would require leave to file from this Court, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), and Washington has not met the criteria for such a second petition, see id. § 2244(b)(l)-(2).

The order of the district court is AFFIRMED and Washington’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.