J udge G r egoryW . C arm an of the U ni t ed S t at es C ourt of Int ernat i onal T r ade, s i tt i ng * bydes i gnat i on. 07- 4557
-pr Gre en v . Phill ips UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y O R D E R D O N O T H A V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORDE R F I L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 20 0 7 , I S P E RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY FED ERA L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1 AN D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L R U LE 32 . 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T , A P A R T Y M U ST C I TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A PP E ND I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R M US T S E RVE A COPY O F I T ON ANY PA R TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. A t a s tate d ter m o f

th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e c o n d C irc u it, h e ld atthe D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C ourthous e, 500 Pear l Str eet , i n the C i tyof N ew Y ork, on the 25 dayof M ar ch, tw o thous and t en. th P R E S E N T : R E E N A R A G G I,

PETE R W . HA LL,

C i r cui tJudges , GR E GOR Y W. CA RMAN,

Judge
. *

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - S HAWN GR E E N, P lai nt i f f

-Appel lant , v. N o. 07- 4557- pr W. E . P HI L L I P S , G. GUINE Y, W. RU S S E T T , T . H. KI E RN AN, L . GOI DE L , F . S AR L E S , J . T AR DI O, T . G. E AGE N, D. HUT T E L L , D. OS S E L M AN, D ef endant s -Appel lees , NUR S E DAWN, D ef endant
.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - F O R A P P E L L A N T : S h a w n G re e n , pro se , E l m i r a C o rr e c tio n a l F a c i l i t y, E l m i r a, N ew Y ork.2

FOR APPELLEE S: A ndr ew M . C uom o, At t o rn e yGen e r a l o f th e St a t e of N e w Y o rk , B a rb a ra D . U n d e rw o o d , S o licito r G e n e ra l, R obertC
. W ei s z, A s s i s t ant Sol i ci t orG ener al , N ew Y ork, N ew Y ork. A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r th e S o u thern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (T h o m a s P . G ri e s a , Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND D E C R E E D that the di s tr i ct court or der ent er ed on Sept ember27, 2007, i s A FFIRM E D , and th a tap p e l l a n t ’ s r e l a t e d mo t i o n t o th i s c o u rti s DE NI E D. Pl ai nt i ff Shaw n G r een appea l s pr o s e fr om the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on for
r el i ef f r om a j udgm ent d i s m i s s i ng hi s amended compl ai ntforfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m . See F e d . R . C iv . P . 6 0 (b ). H e a lso m o v e s f o r re in sta tem e n t o f

a n d c o n so lid a tio n w ith h is previ ou sl ydis m i ssed app eal i n d ock etnu m ber 0 6 -3 9 3 1 -p r. W e assum e the p art i es’ fa m il i ar i tyw i th the fa ct s and r ecor d of pr i orpr ocee di ngs , w hi ch w e r efe r ence onl yas
nece s s aryt o expl ai n ourdeci s i on t o aff i rm the di s tr i ct court ’ s chal l enged or derand t o deny G re e n ’s r e late d m o tio n to th is c o u rt. 1. M ot i on T o R ei ns t at e Pr i orA ppeal G r een moves t o r ei ns t at e hi s pr i or appea l fr om the di s m i s s al of hi s compl ai nt , w hi ch appea l w as di s m i s s ed on Sept ember5, 2007, becaus e G r een f ai l ed t o paythe docke t i ng fee
o r m o v e to p r o c e e d in f o rm a p a u p e ris. A “ sh o w in g o f ‘m a n if e st in ju stic e ’ [ is] n o rm a lly req u ir ed to w arran t r ec all o f a m an d ate.” B e n n ettv . M u k ase y , 5 2 5 F . 3 d 2 2 2 , 2 2 4 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ) ( q u o t i n g F e d
. R. Ap p . P . 2 a d v i s o ryc o mm i tt e e ’ s n o t e )
. Be c a u s e Gr e e n h a s n o ts h o wn3

m a n if e st in ju stic e h e re , w e d e n y h is m o tio n . A c c o rd in g ly , th is a p p e a l b rin g s b e f o re u s o n ly t he di s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s d e n i a l o f h i s Rul e 6 0 ( b ) mot i o n , “ n o tth e me r i t s o f th e u n der l y i ng jud g m en t. ” M atarese v . L eF ev re, 80 1 F . 2 d 9 8 , 1 0 6 (2d C ir
. 1 9 8 6 ). 2. M ot i on forR el i ef f r om J udgm ent W e r evi ew a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of a Rul e 60( b) m ot i on forabus e of di s cr et i on. See T r an sae ro, In c. v. L a Fuer za A er ea Bol i vi ana, 162 F. 3d 724, 729 ( 2d C i r . 1998)
. G r een
su b m it s tha t R u le 60 (b) reli ef w as w arran ted b ec au se o f “ fra u d , ” F ed
. R . C iv. P. 60 (b)(3 ), b ec au se “ the ju d g m en t i s v o id,” F ed
. R . C iv. P. 60 (b )(4), an d b ec au se o f “ ex tr ao rdin ary
c irc u m sta n c e s,” A p p e llan t’s B r. at 1 1 ; se e a lso F e d . R . C iv . P . 6 0 (b )(6 ) (a ll o w in g c o u rt to grantm o t i on for “anyotherreas on that j ust i fi es r el i ef”). W e i den t i fyno m eri ti n these argum ents . a. Fr aud Fi r s t , G r een f

ai l s t o pr ovi de anyevi dence of fr aud bythe d efe ndant s . See K i ng v. Fi r s tA m . I nves t i gat i ons , I nc. , 287 F. 3d 91, 95 ( 2d C i r . 2002) ( hol di ng that m ovants eeki ng R ul e 60( b) r el i ef mustes t abl i s h fr aud bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence )
. I ns t ead, G r een p o in ts o n lyto a lleg e d e rro r b y t h e d istric t co u rt in d ism iss in g h is c o m p lain t an d f a ili n g to
cons i dercert ai n s ubm i tt ed docu m en ts. T hes e al l egat i ons ar e i ns uffi ci entt o j us t i fyr el i ef
u n d e rRu l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 3 )
. S e e F l e mi n g v . N. Y. Un i v . , 8 6 5 F . 2 d 4 7 8 , 4 8 4 ( 2 d Ci r . 1 9 8 9 ) ( “ [ A] R ul e 6 0 ( b ) ( 3 ) mot i o n c a n n o tb e g r a n t e d a b s e n tc l e a ra n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e o f ma t er i al
m isr ep rese n tat ion s an d ca n n o t serve as a n att em p t t o reli ti g ate the m erit s. ”).4 b. V oi d J udgm ent G r een’ s voi dnes s chal l enge r equi r es hi m t o s how thatthe dist ri ct cour t“l acke d ju risd ictio n o f

th e su b jec t m a tter, o r o f th e p a rties , o r . . . a c ted in a m a n n e r in c o n sis ten t w ith d u e p roc ess o f law
. ” G rac e v . B an kL eu m i T rust C o . o f N
. Y . , 4 4 3 F . 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 9 3 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ) (i n tern a l q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). G ree n d o es n o t con tend that the d istri ct co u rt l acke d s ubj ectm att erorper s onal juri sd i ct i on. A s pr evi ous l ynot ed, he compl ai ns thatthe di s tr i ctcourtfai l ed t o ap p l ythe corr ects t andar d and t o cons i derdocument aryevi dence att ache d t o hi s s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on. W e ar e notconvi nced
. A lth ough pr i s oner compl ai nt s ar e nots ubj ectt o a hei ght ened pl eadi ng r equi r ement , s ee Phelps v. K apnol as , 308 F. 3d 180, 187 n. 6 ( 2d C i r . 2002) , they m us tneverthel es s pl ead “ pl aus i bl e” c l ai m s t o s urvi ve di s m i s s al , A s hcr oftv. I qbal , 129 S. C t . 1937, 1949 ( 2009) ; B el l A t l
. C orp. v. T w om bl y , 550 U . S. 544, 570 ( 2007) ; Shom o v. C i ty of N ew Y ork, 579 F. 3d 176, 183 ( 2d C i r . 2009)
. T he di s tr i c tc o u rt , wr i t i n g b e f o r e Twomb l yan d I qbal , eff ect i vel yexpl ai ned w hyG r een’ s amended pl eadi ngs , even w hen r ead l i ber al l y , do nots t at e pl aus i bl e cl ai m s . T hus , w e i dent i fyno due pr oces s deni al i n the s t anda rd ap pl i ed t o di s m i s s G r een’ s compl ai nt . N orcan the di s tr i ct
court ’ s purport ed fa il u re to r evi ew document s fi l ed i n s upportof a s um m aryj udgm ent
m ot i on and now her e re fer ence d i n G r een’ s amended compl ai nt be vi ew ed as a deni al of due p roc ess. S ee P an i v. E m p ire B lue C ross B lue S h iel d , 1 5 2 F . 3 d 6 7 , 7 1 (2d C ir
. 1 9 9 8 ). F i n a l l y , t o th e e x t e n t Gr e e n d i s p u t e s th e me r i t s o f th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s d i s mi s s a l d e c i s i o n , we
a re n o t p e rs u a d e d . In a n ye v e n t, “[ a ] ju d g m e n t is n o t v o id m e re ly b e c a u s e it is e rr o n e o u s .”5

I n r e Texl on C orp. , 596 F. 2d 1092, 1099 ( 2d C i r . 1979) ( alt er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i tt ed) ; acc or d 11 C har l es A l an W r i ght , A rthurR . M i l l er& M aryK ay K an e, F ed era l Pra cti ce an d P roc ed u re § 2 8 6 2 , at 32 6 (2d ed
. 1 9 9 5 ).

c. E xtr aor di naryC i r cumst ance s A lth o u g h G ree n co n tend s tha t he w as e n ti tl ed to reli ef b ase d o n “ e x tr a o rd in ary
c ir c u m s ta n c e s ,” A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 1 1 , h e d o e s n o t sp e c if yw h a t th e s e c ir c u m s ta n c e s a re . A l i beral readi ng of h i s subm i ssi on s suggest s that G reen con t end s h e i s ent i t l ed to r el i ef be cause he w as al l egedl y depr i ved of m edi cal att ent i on and puni s hed i n r et al i at i on for a hungers tr i ke. G r een maynot , how ever , obt ai n rel i ef f r om j udgm entbyr ei t er at i ng the s ame gener al al l egat i ons cont ai ned i n hi s di s m i s s ed com pl ai nt . See S hr aderv. C SX T r ans p. , I nc. , 70 F. 3d 255, 257 ( 2d C i r . 1995) ( “[A ] m ot i on t o r econs i ders houl d notbe gr ant ed w her e the movi ng partys eeks s ol el yt o r el it igate an i s s ue al r eadydeci ded. ”)
. M er e di s agr eementw i th the d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s u n d e r l y i n g j u d g me n td o e s n o tp r e s e n te x tr a o r d i n a ryc i r c u ms t a n c e s o re x tr e me h a rd sh ip . S e e M a tar e se v . L e F e v re , 8 0 1 F .2 d a t 1 0 6 -0 7 (h o ld in g th a t, w h ile re lief is
ap p r o p r i a t e i n “ e x tr a o r d i n a ryc i r c u ms t a n c e s ” o r“ wh e r e th e j u d g me n tma ywo rka n e x tr e me
a n d u n d u e h a rd s h ip ,” R u le 6 0 (b )( 6 ) “ m a yn o t b e u s e d a s a s u b s titu te f o r a p p e a l” ). A ccor di ngl y , w e i dent i fyno abus e of di s cr et i on i n th e d istr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of G r een’ s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on.6

W e have cons i der ed G r een’ s r emai ni ng ar gum ent s on appea l and concl ude thatthey
are w ith o u t m erit
. A cc o rdin g ly , w e A F F IR M the d istri ct c o u rt ’s S ep tem b er 2 7 , 2 0 0 7 o rde r,
a n d w e D E N Y G re e n ’s m o tio n to re in sta te h is p rio r a p p e a l. FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt