Eggleston v. Akshar et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JOSHUA EGGLESTON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FREDERICK AKSHAR, et al.,
Defendants.
9:25-CV-0770
(GTS/TWD)
APPEARANCES:
JOSHUA EGGLESTON
Plaintiff, pro se
25-B-1221
Mohawk Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 8451
Rome, NY 13440
GLENN T. SUDDABY
United States District Judge
OF COUNSEL:
DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
On June 16, 2025, pro se plaintiff Joshua Eggleston ("plaintiff") filed a complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") asserting claims arising out of his confinement
at Broome County Correctional Facility ("Broome County C.F."). Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl.").
Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). Dkt. No. 2.
In a Decision and Order filed on July 25, 2025 (the "July 2025 Order"), the Court
granted plaintiff's IFP application and reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Dkt. No. 5. The Court dismissed plaintiff's
complaint for failure to state a claim. Id. In light of plaintiff's pro se status, the Court provided
Case 9:25-cv-00770-GTS-TWD Document 11 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 5

2
plaintiff with an opportunity to amend his complaint. Id. Plaintiff was advised that, if he failed
to submit an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the filing date of the July 2025
Order, the Court would, without further order, enter judgment dismissing the action without
prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted pursuant to Sections
1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1). Id.
On August 18, 2025, mail sent to plaintiff at the address listed on the Docket Report
was returned as "undeliverable." Dkt. No. 7. Plaintiff's last known address, and the address
listed on the Docket Report was Broome County Correctional Facility. Pursuant to the July
2025 Order, judgment was entered by the Clerk on September 30, 2025, and it was served
on plaintiff by regular mail. Dkt. No. 8. On October 14, 2025, mail sent to plaintiff at the
address listed on the Docket Report was returned as "undeliverable." Dkt. No. 9. Plaintiff did
not appeal to the Second Circuit from the Judgment. See generally Docket Report.
On January 6, 2026, plaintiff filed a letter motion to re-open the action. Dkt. No. 10. In
light of plaintiff's pro se status, the Court considers the submission as a motion to vacate the
September 2025 judgment.
II. 	MOTION TO VACATE
While plaintiff does not specify the grounds under which he seeks to vacate,
construing his submission liberally, plaintiff requests relief under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b)(6) arguing "extraordinary circumstances." Rule 60(b) provides:
Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order or Proceeding.
On a motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party . . . from
a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) 	mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect;
Case 9:25-cv-00770-GTS-TWD Document 11 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 5

3
(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, misrepresentation, or misconduct;
(4) 	the judgment is void;
(5) 	the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
discharged; or
(6) 	any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time--
and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order
or the date of the proceeding. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). "[A] district court may not apply the
normal rules for enlarging the time, contained in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 6(b), to
a motion under Rule 60(b)." Flemming v. Rosadro, No. 9:06-CV-809 (FJS/RFT), 2010 WL
11546111, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. July 26, 2010), aff'd, No. 10-3430-PR, 2011 WL 5222791 (2d Cir.
Nov. 3, 2011).
Rule 60(b)(6) is a "catch-all" provision that applies to "extraordinary circumstances" or
"extreme hardship." U.S. v. Cirami, 563 F.2d 26, 32 (2d Cir. 1977). The decision whether to
afford relief rests with the "sound discretion of the district court." Garcia v. Myears, No. 13-
CV-0965, 2015 WL 1015425, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. March 9, 2015). "Generally, courts require that
the evidence in support of the motion to vacate a final judgment be 'highly convincing,' that a
party show good cause for the failure to act sooner, and that no undue hardship be imposed
on other parties." Kotlicky v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 817 F.2d 6, 9 (2d Cir. 1987) (citation and
internal citations omitted).
Here, plaintiff filed his letter on January 3, 20261; three months since the entry of
judgment. See Dkt. No. 10. Given the fact that plaintiff is pro se, the Court does not find the
1 Under the "prison mailbox rule," the date of filing is deemed to be the date that the prisoner-plaintiff delivered
his submission to a prison guard for mailing to the court which, absent other evidence, is presumed to be the
Case 9:25-cv-00770-GTS-TWD Document 11 Filed 01/29/26 Page 3 of 5

4
delay to be unreasonable. In support of his claim of "extraordinary circumstances," plaintiff
claims that the action was "closed without [his] knowledge" because he was transferred to
"Upstate prison" in July 2025 and "Broome County said that I was no longer incarcerated so I
never received paperwork[.]" 	Dkt. No. 10.
Based upon a review of the motion and procedural history, to prevent manifest
injustice, the Court grants plaintiff's motion to vacate the judgment. See Braithwaite v.
Gaitman, No. 22-CV-0974, 2022 WL 14059127, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2022) (noting that
the special solicitude towards pro se litigants "takes a variety of forms, including liberal
construction of papers, relaxation of the limitations on the amendment of pleadings, leniency
in the enforcement of other procedural rules"). The judgment entered September 30, 2025 is
vacated. The Clerk is directed to restore this case to the active docket.
Since this action has been re-opened, the Court will afford plaintiff a final opportunity
to comply with the July 2025 Order. The deadline for submission of an amended complaint in
compliance with the July 2025 Order is extended for thirty (30) days. Plaintiff is advised that
for the orderly disposition of cases, it is essential that litigants honor their continuing
obligation to keep the court informed of address changes. Consequently, plaintiff is advised
that he must continue to submit any address changes to the Court as long as his action is
pending. "Failure to notify the Court of a change of address in accordance with L.R. 10.1(b)
may result in the dismissal of any pending action." N.D.N.Y. L.R. 41.2(b).
III. 	CONCLUSION
date that the submission was signed. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988); Noble v. Kelly, 246 F.3d
93, 97 (2d Cir. 2001). Here, the submission is not dated, but the envelope was postmarked January 3, 2026.
Dkt. No. 10 at 2.
Case 9:25-cv-00770-GTS-TWD Document 11 Filed 01/29/26 Page 4 of 5

5
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to vacate (Dkt. No. 10) is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that in the event plaintiff fails to comply with the directives set forth herein,
the complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice, without further order of this Court; and it is
further; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on plaintiff.
Dated: January 29, 2026
Syracuse, New York
Case 9:25-cv-00770-GTS-TWD Document 11 Filed 01/29/26 Page 5 of 5