Sowell v. Kelly
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-05354
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Sowell v. Kelly, Judge Swain denied Randy Sowell’s reconsideration motions, without prejudice to a new civil action.
Randy Sowell’s two pending actions were not reopened, although the court left him free to initiate a new civil action; the defendants were not required to litigate the proposed amended complaint in these actions.
What happened
In Sowell v. Kelly, Randy Sowell asked the court to reconsider rulings in two related cases. He filed both cases without a lawyer and submitted the same proposed amended complaint in each case.
The court found that the proposed complaint did not follow earlier instructions, repeated the same claims in both cases, combined unrelated events from several counties and New Jersey, and did not clearly identify which claims belonged in which case. The court also found no basis under the federal rule allowing relief from a judgment or order.
The court denied both reconsideration motions, without prejudice to Sowell’s starting a new civil action. Judge Swain warned that unrelated claims may not be combined in one case and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Sowell v. Kelly · No. 1:23-cv-05354
- Laura Swain
- May 19, 2025
Background
Randy Sowell filed two civil actions without a lawyer. The first, 22-CV-6538, concerned claims involving parole, parole revocation, and alleged unlawful detention under parole warrants. The court dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim and because some defendants were immune from liability, while allowing leave to file a second amended complaint. After Sowell did not file that pleading, the court dismissed the action in April 2024.
The second action, 23-CV-5354, was opened after the court separated claims from the first action. The court later allowed Sowell to amend, but dismissed that action in February 2024 without prejudice after several court orders were returned as undeliverable. Sowell later filed the same motion for reconsideration and the same proposed second amended complaint in both actions.
Motion for relief from the earlier rulings
The court treated Sowell’s reconsideration motion as a request for relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule permits relief from a judgment or order for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. The court found that Sowell had not shown that any of the first five grounds applied.
The court also considered the rule’s provision for other extraordinary reasons. It found that Sowell had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for that relief. The proposed amended pleading did not comply with the earlier orders in either case because it was an exact duplicate in both actions, asserted claims arising from 2019 to the present in New York County, Bronx County, Queens County, and New Jersey, and did not make clear which claims belonged in either action or were unrelated to both.
Ruling
The court denied Sowell’s motion for reconsideration in 22-CV-6538 and denied his motion for reconsideration in 23-CV-5354. The denial was without prejudice to Sowell’s initiating a new civil action based on his contention that violations of his rights are ongoing. The court warned that unrelated claims may not be joined in one civil action, directed the Clerk to terminate the motions, and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.