Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Christine Anderson v. The State of New York et al. (07-9599) -- Judge Shira A. Scheindlin's Order Dismissing FRCP 60 Motion to Vacate Judgment [October 2, 2012]

Christine Anderson v. The State of New York et al. (07-9599) -- Judge Shira A. Scheindlin's Order Dismissing FRCP 60 Motion to Vacate Judgment [October 2, 2012]

Ratings: (0)|Views: 96|Likes:
Published by Mr Alkebu-lan
Here's a recent decision made in the Southern District of New York concerning a Plaintiff's FRCP 60 Motion to have her case reopened based on claims of "newly discovered evidence" and "fraud upon the Court." It took the judge less than four months to make a decision. Why then, is it taking Judge Patterson nearly eight months (and counting) to rule on Mr. Rowe's FRCP 60 Motion? #white supreamcy #conspiracy #fraud # judicial misconduct # impeachment
Here's a recent decision made in the Southern District of New York concerning a Plaintiff's FRCP 60 Motion to have her case reopened based on claims of "newly discovered evidence" and "fraud upon the Court." It took the judge less than four months to make a decision. Why then, is it taking Judge Patterson nearly eight months (and counting) to rule on Mr. Rowe's FRCP 60 Motion? #white supreamcy #conspiracy #fraud # judicial misconduct # impeachment

More info:

Published by: Mr Alkebu-lan on Oct 06, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/06/2012

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------)(
CHRISTINE C. ANDERSON,OPINION AND ORDERPlaintiff,07 Civ. 9599 (SAS)-against-THE STATE OF NEW YORK, THEOFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATIONOF THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM,THOMAS J. CAHILL,
in
his official andindividual capacity, SHERRY K. COHEN,in her official and individual capacity, andDAVID SPOKONY, in his official andindividual capacity,Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------)(
SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, U.S.D.J.:
Plaintiff Christine
C.
Anderson, proceeding pro se, moves to re-openher case pursuant to Federal Rule
of
Civil Procedure ("Rule") 60(b) and (d)(3
).1
Plaintiff seeks a new trial on the grounds
of
newly discovered evidence consisting
See
6/25/12 Notice
of
Motion and accompanying Affirmation
of
Christine
C.
Anderson in Support
of
Motion to Reopen ("Anderson Aff.")
~
4.
Plaintiff does not specify the particular provision
of
Rule 60(b) on which she isrelying. Because plaintiff characterizes her claims as "newly-discovered evidencefrom the Corrado case,"
id.
at
~
8,
they fall under the purview
of
Rule 60(b )(2).
See Madonna
v.
United States,
878 F.2d
62,64
(2d Cir. 1989) (stating that Rule60(b )(2) motion is properly based on new evidence
of
fraud or mistake discoveredafter trial).
Case 1:07-cv-09599-SAS Document 137 Filed 10/02/12 Page 1 of 18
 
of a federal lawsuit filed by Nicole Corrado in the Eastern District of New York 
2
and fraud. Plaintiff alleges that this newly discovered evidence corroborates thefact that Corrado was threatened into not testifying at plaintiff’s trial.
3
For thefollowing reasons, plaintiff’s motion is denied.
I.BACKGROUNDA.Andersons Case
Represented by counsel, Anderson brought suit against defendantspursuant to,
inter alia
, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“ Title VII”), 42U.S.C. § 1981 (“ section 1981”), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“section 1983”), New York State Executive Law § 296, and state common law. Plaintiff alleged, under bothfederal and state law, that she was unlawfully terminated and subjected to a hostilework environment because of her race (African American), color (black), andnational origin (Jamaican). Plaintiff further claimed that defendants: deprived herof the right to make and enforce contracts; unlawfully retaliated against her forhaving exercised her constitutional right to free speech; violated her Fourteenth
2
Corrado v. New York State Unified Court System
, 12 CV 1748(E.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2012) (“Corrado Compaint”), Ex. A to the Anderson Aff.
3
See
Anderson Aff. ¶ 4.
See also id.
¶ 8 (“This newly-discoveredevidence from the
Corrado case
, only filed April 10, 2012, clearly shows thatplaintiff’s witness, attorney Nicole Corrado, was threatened and chilled into
 not 
testifying at plaintiff’s trial – a manifest attack on our system of law and a cleardenial of plaintiff’s right to a fair trial.”) (emphasis in original).
2
Case 1:07-cv-09599-SAS Document 137 Filed 10/02/12 Page 2 of 18
 
Amendment rights to due process and equal protection by discriminating againsther; and that the public entity defendants breached a state collective bargainingagreement.On April 27, 2009, this Court issued an Opinion and Order grantingpartial summary judgment to defendants.
4
In that Order, plaintiff’s claims of discrimination based on race, color and national origin were dismissed. Claimsbased on the following were also dismissed: section 1981, due process, equalprotection, and state law including breach of contract.
5
Plaintiff was left with asingle First Amendment retaliation claim against Thomas J. Cahill, Sherry K.Cohen, and David Spokony (the “individual defendants”) in their individualcapacities.
6
The gravamen of plaintiff’s retaliation claim was that the individualdefendants, all of whom worked at the Departmental Disciplinary Committee of the Appellate Division, First Department, New York State Supreme Court(“DDC”), retaliated against her for exercising her constitutional right to freespeech. Plaintiff claimed that the individual defendants retaliated against herbecause she reported acts of misconduct and corruption by the DDC, otherwise
4
 Anderson v. State of New York, Office of Court Admin. of Unified Court Sys.
, 614 F. Supp. 2d 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
5
See id.
at 432-33.
6
See id.
at 433.
3
Case 1:07-cv-09599-SAS Document 137 Filed 10/02/12 Page 3 of 18

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->