Celli v. AG GARLAND AND THE AUSA OF YOUR DISTRICT1
- Rearden
- 1:24-cv-07442
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Celli v. Bondi, Judge Rearden, denied reconsideration of dismissal, denied an evidentiary hearing as moot, and closed the case.
Lucio Celli’s federal action and his request to reconsider its dismissal were affected. The order also affects his ability to seek fee-free appeal status and warns that future meritless filings could lead to a proceeding about restricting filings in this action.
What happened
In Celli v. Bondi, Lucio Celli, representing himself, challenged the dismissal of an action that apparently sought an injunction related to his 2021 criminal conviction for transmitting threats to injure. The court had dismissed the action on March 24, 2025, for failing to state a claim that could support relief.
Celli filed a motion opposing dismissal of a claimed conspiracy involving Randi Weingarten and requesting an evidentiary hearing. The court treated the filing as a request to reconsider the earlier dismissal under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Celli argued that his allegations stated a claim under a federal civil-rights statute, but the court found that he had not shown that it overlooked controlling law, relevant facts, or a valid reason for relief under Rule 60(b).
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden denied Celli’s reconsideration motion under Rule 59(e) and the local rule, denied relief under every part of Rule 60(b), and denied the evidentiary-hearing request as moot. The case was closed. The court also warned that future frivolous or otherwise meritless filings could lead to a proceeding about barring further filings without the court’s permission, and denied fee-free appeal status because any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Celli v. AG GARLAND AND THE AUSA OF YOUR DISTRICT1 · No. 1:24-cv-07442
- Rearden
- May 14, 2025
Background
Lucio Celli, acting without a lawyer, filed this action apparently seeking injunctive relief connected to his 2021 criminal conviction for “Transmission of Threats to Injure.” On March 24, 2025, the court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
Celli then filed the application at ECF No. 14, describing it as opposing dismissal of a conspiracy claim against Randi Weingarten, whom the opinion describes as a private individual, and supporting a request for an evidentiary hearing. The court interpreted the application as a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3, or alternatively under Rule 60(b), of the earlier dismissal.
Rule 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3
A motion under Rule 59(e) or Local Civil Rule 6.3 requires the moving party to show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court stated that these motions are narrowly construed and strictly applied to discourage repetitive arguments.
The court found that Celli had not shown that it overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters. It therefore denied his motion under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3.
Rule 60(b)
Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from an order or judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief.
The court found that Celli had not shown that any of the first five grounds applied. It denied relief under those provisions. The court also considered Rule 60(b)(6), which applies for reasons other than those listed in the first five provisions. Relief under that provision requires extraordinary circumstances, and the court found that Celli had not demonstrated them.
Disposition
The court denied Celli’s application at ECF No. 14. It denied his request for an evidentiary hearing as moot and closed the case under docket number 24 Civ. 7442.
The court warned that, if Celli filed a future frivolous or otherwise nonmeritorious submission in the action, it could direct him to show cause why he should not be barred from filing future submissions without the court’s permission. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Celli, terminate ECF No. 14, and record service on the docket.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.