Milchamot v. Bronx District Attorney's Office
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-09101
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Milchamot v. Bronx District Attorney’s Office, Judge Swain denied reconsideration and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Yehudah Milchamot, whose motions for reconsideration were denied. The Bronx District Attorney’s Office and the other named defendants remain affected by the continued dismissal, but the order did not decide the merits of the claims against them.
What happened
Yehudah Milchamot filed a civil-rights lawsuit seeking money damages under federal law. The court had dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice because he filed it without first obtaining required permission to proceed without paying filing fees, despite an earlier order requiring that permission.
Milchamot asked the court to reconsider the dismissal. He acknowledged the permission requirement but argued that it did not apply to cases seeking release from custody, and he said he planned to appeal because he was innocent of the charged crimes. The court treated his filings as requests under Rules 59(e) and 60(b), which allow limited relief from a judgment or order.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the reconsideration motions because Milchamot did not show a valid basis under either rule. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Milchamot v. Bronx District Attorney's Office · No. 1:24-cv-09101
- Laura Swain
- May 5, 2025
Background
Yehudah Milchamot filed a complaint without a lawyer against the Bronx District Attorney’s Office and other defendants. He invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and sought compensatory and punitive damages. The court had previously ordered that he could not file a new action without paying filing fees unless he first obtained the court’s permission. On January 13, 2025, the court dismissed this action without prejudice because Milchamot had not obtained that permission.
The opinion also refers to other proceedings involving Milchamot, including a petition seeking release from custody and a notice seeking to move his criminal case to federal court. Those proceedings were not the subject of the ruling summarized here.
Motions for reconsideration
Milchamot filed motions challenging the dismissal. The court treated them as motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which permits a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment, and Rule 60(b), which permits relief from an order or judgment for specified reasons such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, or another justification recognized by the rule.
Milchamot acknowledged that he was required to seek permission before filing a new action without paying filing fees. He argued that the earlier filing restriction did not apply to an action seeking release from custody. He also stated that he intended to appeal the dismissal because the government knew he was innocent of the crimes with which he had been charged.
Ruling
The court denied the motions for reconsideration. It concluded that Milchamot had not shown that the court overlooked controlling law or facts, as required for relief under Rule 59(e), or that any ground for relief under Rule 60(b) applied. The court explained that the complaint was presented as a civil-rights action seeking damages, not as a petition seeking release from custody. Therefore, the earlier order restricting his ability to proceed without paying filing fees applied to this case.
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 filing fees. The order did not decide whether Milchamot’s underlying § 1985 claims were legally valid.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.