Miller v. United States

Background

Maureen Miller, representing herself and proceeding without paying the filing fee, sued the United States under federal-question jurisdiction concerning an incident alleged to have occurred in Battery Park in July 2024. On February 6, 2025, the court ordered Miller to file an amended complaint. The court later reminded her that failing to amend within 60 days could result in dismissal for failure to state a claim and on immunity grounds.

Miller then filed a motion for a conference, documents challenging the February 6 order, a motion asking the court to reconsider that order, and a motion for permission to file documents electronically. In the reconsideration motion, she also invoked federal statutes concerning appeals, which the court treated as a request for an interlocutory appeal—an appeal before a final judgment.

Court’s analysis

The court held that it retained jurisdiction because Miller was attempting to appeal from a nonfinal order that had not been certified for interlocutory appeal. The court explained that an order allowing a plaintiff to amend a complaint is not a final order. It also declined to certify an interlocutory appeal because the February 6 order did not meet the statutory requirements, and because Miller filed her application after the 10-day deadline.

The court treated Miller’s reconsideration request as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows relief from an order or judgment for specified reasons. The court found that Miller had not alleged facts supporting any of the first five listed grounds, such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud. The court also found no extraordinary circumstances supporting relief under Rule 60(b)(6), the provision covering other reasons that may justify relief.

The court denied the electronic-filing motion without prejudice because Miller had not used the required form and had not provided information, including whether she had completed the required electronic-filing training. Without that information, the court could not determine whether she was eligible to participate in electronic filing.

Disposition

The court denied the motions for reconsideration and interlocutory appeal. It denied without prejudice the motion for permission to participate in electronic case filing. It also granted Miller an extension of time to file an amended complaint: she must file it within 20 days of April 4, 2025. The court stated that if she failed to do so, the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment dismissing the action for the reasons given in the February 6 order, and that no further extension would be granted. The court also certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Miller permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.