Simpson v. Chassen
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-02372
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Simpson v. Chassen, Judge Swain denied Simpson’s reconsideration motion and related requests after he failed to pay fees or seek a fee waiver.
Jeffrey Simpson’s post-judgment requests were denied. The action had already been dismissed without prejudice and remanded to state court; the order also denied fee-free appeal status and warned of possible filing restrictions.
What happened
In Simpson v. Chassen, Jeffrey Simpson represented himself. The court had previously dismissed the action without prejudice and sent it to New York state court because Simpson did not pay the required filing fees or submit an application to avoid them. Simpson appealed that judgment and then filed several requests, including an emergency request, a request to combine this case with others, and a request for a conference.
The court treated those later filings as one request asking it to reconsider the judgment. Because the filings were made within 28 days after judgment, the court concluded it had authority to consider the request even though Simpson had filed an appeal. The court found that Simpson had not shown that it overlooked controlling law or facts and denied the reconsideration request and all other requests included in it, including the request to combine cases.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also warned that another nonmeritorious filing could lead to restrictions on future filings in this case. She certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status.
The detailed version
- Simpson v. Chassen · No. 1:25-cv-02372
- Laura Swain
- June 3, 2025
Background
The court had directed Plaintiff Jeffrey Simpson, who was representing himself, to either submit an application to proceed without paying filing fees or pay the $405 required to file a civil action. Simpson did neither. On April 25, 2025, the court dismissed the action without prejudice, denied then-pending motions and requests as moot, and sent the action to the New York Supreme Court, New York County.
Simpson filed a notice of appeal from that judgment. He later filed several submissions in this action: an emergency request seeking direction and a stay of state-court proceedings, an apparent request to consolidate this action with other actions he had filed in the federal court, and a letter seeking a conference before a magistrate judge who had not been assigned or referred to this action.
Jurisdiction
The court treated all of Simpson’s post-appeal submissions as one motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 6.3. A Rule 59(e) motion asks the court to alter or reconsider a judgment. Normally, filing a notice of appeal transfers authority over the appealed matters to the appeals court. But a timely Rule 59(e) motion delays the effectiveness of the notice of appeal until the district court rules on that motion.
Because the judgment was entered on April 25, 2025, and Simpson filed the later submissions on May 9 and May 16—within the applicable 28-day period—the court concluded that it had jurisdiction to consider the motion.
Reconsideration ruling
The court explained that relief under Rule 59(e) requires showing that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented to it. The same standard applied under Local Civil Rule 6.3. These motions are narrowly applied and are not an opportunity to repeat arguments, present new theories, or submit new evidence in response to the court’s prior ruling.
The court found that Simpson had identified nothing showing that it overlooked controlling law or facts. It stated that the action had been dismissed and remanded for one reason: Simpson neither paid the filing fees nor submitted the required fee-waiver application within the time allowed. The court therefore denied Simpson’s motion under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3.
Disposition and warning
The court denied the motion and all other pending requests included in it, including the request to consolidate this closed action with Simpson’s other federal actions. The court warned that another nonmeritorious submission, other than a notice of appeal, could result in an order requiring Simpson to explain why he should not be barred from filing future submissions in this action without the court’s permission.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Simpson permission to appeal without paying fees.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.