Miller v. United States
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-06532
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Miller v. United States: Judge Swain denied Maureen Miller’s request to revisit the dismissal, leaving the case closed.
Maureen Miller’s motion to revisit the earlier dismissal was denied, so the case remains closed. The order also denies fee-waiver status for an appeal.
What happened
In Miller v. United States, Maureen Miller asked the court to undo or reconsider its earlier dismissal of her complaint and its denial of her request that the judge step aside.
The court rejected Miller’s arguments that it had overlooked important law or facts, mishandled her filings, or improperly directed the clerk’s office to terminate motions on the docket. The court explained that terminating motions showed they had been decided, not hidden or erased.
Judge Swain denied the request under the federal rules governing changes to judgments, local reconsideration motions, and relief from judgments. The case remains closed, and the court denied fee-waiver status for any appeal after finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Miller v. United States · No. 1:24-cv-06532
- Laura Swain
- June 23, 2025
Background
Maureen Miller proceeded without a lawyer and was granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees. On June 3, 2025, the court had denied her request for the judge’s recusal and dismissed her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii), for the reasons stated in an order dated February 6, 2025.
On June 20, 2025, Miller filed a motion citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), (3), (4), and (6), among other language. The court treated the filing as three types of requests: a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, and a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b).
Court’s Analysis
Rule 59(e). The court explained that a Rule 59(e) motion requires showing that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters already presented. Miller argued that the court improperly denied her recusal motion. The court held that the recusal motion had been properly denied because it relied only on conduct arising during the case, rather than conduct outside the judicial proceeding that could ordinarily establish personal bias.
Miller also alleged that the court had committed criminal violations by directing the clerk’s office to conceal, hide, remove, terminate, or erase her motions. The court explained that references to terminating motions meant only that the docket was being updated to show that the motions had been decided and were no longer pending. The court stated that every motion Miller filed remained on the docket and in the case record. It concluded that Miller had not shown that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters and denied the Rule 59(e) motion.
Local Civil Rule 6.3. The court said that the standard under Local Civil Rule 6.3 is the same as the Rule 59(e) standard. Because Miller had not shown that the court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters concerning the dismissed action, the court denied the motion under Local Civil Rule 6.3.
Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b) permits relief from a judgment or order for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct by an opposing party, a void judgment, or other circumstances justifying relief. The court concluded that Miller had not shown that any of the first five listed grounds applied and denied the motion under those provisions.
The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which covers other reasons justifying relief. It explained that this provision requires a reason different from the grounds in provisions (1) through (5), a filing within a reasonable time, and extraordinary circumstances. The court found that Miller had not shown extraordinary circumstances.
Disposition
The court denied Miller’s motion for reconsideration, directed the clerk to terminate all motions in the action, and stated that the matter remains closed. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.