Williams v. United States
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-08338
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Williams v. United States, Judge Swain denied John T. Williams’s motion to reconsider dismissal of his substantially similar action.
John T. Williams’s dismissed action and any appeal from the order; the court denied his motion to reconsider and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Williams v. United States, John T. Williams, representing himself, challenged the dismissal of his action. The court had dismissed it without prejudice because he already had a substantially similar action pending in the same court and had not obtained permission required for certain new fee-free filings.
Williams asked the court to reopen the case, arguing that the two actions were not identical and that he had updated his petition and used the correct form. The court treated his filing as a request to change the judgment under Rule 59(e), which allows that relief when the court overlooked controlling law or important facts.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion because Williams did not show that the court had overlooked any controlling legal decision or factual matter. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Williams v. United States · No. 1:23-cv-08338
- Laura Swain
- July 9, 2024
Background
John T. Williams filed this action representing himself and sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. On September 28, 2023, the court dismissed the action without prejudice because Williams already had a substantially similar action pending in the same court seeking the same relief. The court also noted that Williams was barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 from filing a new action in that court without paying the filing fee unless he first obtained permission, which he had not done.
The opinion states that the substantially similar action was later reassigned to Judge Richard Sullivan and that Williams voluntarily discontinued it on January 3, 2024.
Motion to Reconsider
Williams later filed a “motion to reopen” challenging the September 28 dismissal. The court treated the filing as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule requires the moving party to show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. Such motions are narrowly applied and are not an opportunity to repeat arguments or present new theories in response to the court’s ruling.
Williams argued that the two cases were not identical because his petition in this action had been updated and he had used the correct fee-waiver form for the Southern District of New York. The court concluded that he had not shown that it overlooked any controlling legal decisions or factual matters.
Ruling
The court denied Williams’s motion under Rule 59(e). The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.