Abulkhair v. The Federal Bureau of Investigation

Background

Assem Abulkhair filed the action without a lawyer. On May 22, 2024, the court dismissed his complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), and the clerk entered judgment on May 28, 2024. Abulkhair filed a motion on June 18, 2024, asking the court to reconsider that dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). He filed a notice of appeal on June 20, 2024.

The court treated the filing as three requests: a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, and a motion for relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b).

Jurisdiction and Rule 59(e)

The court held that it had authority to consider the Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) requests despite the notice of appeal because Abulkhair filed the motion within 28 days after judgment. A timely motion of this kind is decided by the district court before the appeal becomes effective on the issues covered by the motion.

The court denied the Rule 59(e) motion. That rule requires a party to show that the court overlooked controlling law or facts previously presented. Abulkhair repeated arguments similar to those the court had already found frivolous. He also argued that a revised complaint containing a spelling correction and approximately 30,000 images and videos had not been entered on the docket.

The court explained that a plaintiff generally need not submit evidence at the pleading stage, but must allege plausible facts supporting a viable claim. It concluded that Abulkhair’s complaint lacked plausible factual support and that his conclusory claims and suspicions were irrational. The court also stated that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment, so even a substantively different revised complaint would not have changed the dismissal.

Local Civil Rule 6.3

The court denied the request under Local Civil Rule 6.3 because that rule required the motion to be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment. Abulkhair did not meet that deadline. The court applied the same basic standard as under Rule 59(e): showing that the court overlooked controlling law or previously presented factual matters.

Rule 60(b)

The court denied relief under each of the first five parts of Rule 60(b), finding that Abulkhair had not shown that any of those grounds applied. Those grounds include mistake or excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, misconduct by an opposing party, a void judgment, and certain circumstances involving satisfaction, reversal, or unfair prospective application of a judgment.

The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), the provision allowing relief for another qualifying reason. It found that Abulkhair had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for that relief.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Abulkhair’s motion for reconsideration. The clerk was directed to terminate all other pending matters in the action. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.