Baker Jr. v. Hannah-Jones

Background

Ralph W. Baker Jr. filed a second motion asking the court to reconsider its earlier denial of his request for leave to amend his copyright claims. In the earlier order, the court had stated that, even assuming the copyright claims were timely, amendment would be futile because Baker had not plausibly alleged copyright infringement. The court had also repeatedly concluded that Baker had not plausibly alleged substantial similarity between his work and the allegedly infringing works.

Court’s Analysis

The court described reconsideration under Rule 59 as an extraordinary remedy that is generally available only when the moving party identifies controlling decisions or information the court overlooked. It held that Baker’s arguments did not meet that strict standard. His argument about timeliness did not address the court’s separate conclusion that the proposed amendment would be futile. His argument about substantial similarity sought to relitigate an issue the court had already addressed in three orders. The court stated that disagreement with those conclusions was a reason to appeal, not a basis for reconsideration.

Ruling

The court DENIED Baker’s motion for reconsideration. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the court’s orders would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 11. The opinion states that any further relief must be sought from the Court of Appeals.