UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SEAN G. FELDER, Plaintiff, -against- 20-CV-8842 (LLS) ATRIA BUILDERS; ED GRUNWALL, ORDER PRESIDENT; MIKE FERGUSKI, SECURITY DIRECTOR, Defendants. LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge: Plaintiff filed this action pro se. On May 7, 2021, the Court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim,

(e)(2)(B)(ii). On September 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed a letter indicating that he wants this case to “renew and continue.” (ECF No. 19 at 1.) On October 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for monetary damages, asserting that Defendants discriminated against him, and that he is therefore entitled to relief. (ECF No. 20.) The Court liberally construes these submissions as a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) for relief from a judgment or order. See Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons,

(2d Cir. 2006); see also Tracy v. Freshwater,

(2d Cir. 2010) (The solicitude afforded to 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, and “deliberate, continuing efforts to ensure that a pro se litigant understands what is required of him”) (citations omitted). After reviewing the arguments in

Plaintiff’s submissions, the Court denies the motion. DISCUSSION Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), a party may seek relief from a district court’s order or judgment for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (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 (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The Court has considered Plaintiff’s arguments, and even under a liberal interpretation of his motion, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that any of the grounds listed in the first five clauses of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) apply. Therefore, the motion under any of these clauses is denied. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), the motion is also denied. “[A] Rule 60(b)(6) motion must be based upon some reason other than those stated in clauses (1)-(5).” United Airlines, Inc. v. Brien,

(2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Smith v. Sec’y of HHS,

(6th Cir. 1985)). A party moving under Rule 60(b)(6) cannot circumvent the one-year limitation applicable to claims under clauses (1)-(3) by invoking the residual clause (6) of Rule 60(b).

A Rule 60(b)(6) motion must show both that the motion was filed within a “reasonable time” and that “‘extraordinary circumstances’ [exist] to warrant relief.” Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Pac. Fin. Servs. of America, Inc.,

(2d Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). See Ackermann v. United States,

(1950). CONCLUSION Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 19) is denied. Plaintiff's motion for monetary damages (ECF No. 20) is denied as moot. Plaintiff’s case in this Court under Docket No. 20-CV-8842 is closed. The Court will only accept for filing documents that are directed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. If Plaintiff files other documents that are frivolous or meritless, the Court will direct Plaintiff to show cause why Plaintiff should not be barred from filing further documents in this action. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 5, 2021 New York, New York Leni Lo Stentrn _ Louis L. Stanton U.S.D.J.