Opinion
22-CV-7501 (LTS)
12-15-2023
PARVIZ LAVI, Plaintiff, v. DWS; DEUTSCHE BANK, Defendant.
ORDER
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff filed this action pro se and in forma pauperis. By order dated October 7, 2022, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 60 days, and warned Plaintiff that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint. (ECF 4.) Because Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise communicate with the Court, the matter was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on January 26, 2023. (ECF 5, 6.) On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff submitted a letter stating that he never received the October 7, 2022 order to amend, attached to which are documents that could arguably be construed as an amended complaint. (ECF 7.) On August 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. (ECF 8.)
The Court construes Plaintiff's February 14, 2023 letter and attachments as a motion under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which authorizes the Court to relieve a party from a final judgment for “any [] reason that justifies relief.” In light of Plaintiff's pro se status, and because Plaintiff claims that he never received the Court's October 7, 2022 order, the motion for relief from a final judgment is granted. The Court's February 14, 2023 order and judgment are vacated, and Plaintiff's complaint is reinstated. The request for an extension of time to appeal is denied as moot.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's motion under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is granted. The Court's January 26, 2023 order and judgment are vacated. The Clerk of Court is directed to reopen this case. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail to Plaintiff, in addition to a copy of this order, a copy of the October 7, 2022 order to amend. (ECF 4.)
The motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal is denied as moot, and the Clerk of Court is directed to terminate it. (ECF 8.)
The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, should he wish to do so, that complies with the standards set forth in the October 7, 2022 order to amend. (ECF 4.) Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to this Court's Pro Se Intake Unit within 30 days of the date of this order, caption the document as an “Amended Complaint,” and label the document with docket number 22-CV-7501 (LTS). An Amended Complaint form is attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the time allowed, and cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the Court will construe the documents attached to the February 14, 2023 letter as the amended complaint. No further extensions of time will be granted.
Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is a frequent litigator, and the Court expects him to monitor his cases and comply with filing deadlines. See Sledge v. Kooi, 564 F.3d 105, 109-110 (2d Cir. 2009) (discussing circumstances where frequent pro se litigant may be charged with knowledge of particular legal requirements).
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).
SO ORDERED.