Marvin v. Allen
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:23-cv-05947
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Marvin v. Allen, Judge Karas denied Mark Marvin’s motion to reconsider an earlier dismissal based on lack of federal jurisdiction.
Mark Marvin’s motion for reconsideration was denied, leaving the court’s earlier dismissal of his claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in place. The defendants were not required to respond to claims that had already been dismissed.
What happened
Marvin v. Allen concerns Mark Marvin’s challenge to actions involving a local tax matter by Blane Allen, Dennis Ketchom, Marie Pruschki, Kelly Eskew, Kerry Gallagher, and the County of Orange. The court had previously dismissed his claims for lack of federal jurisdiction, including because the Tax Injunction Act barred them.
Marvin asked the court to reconsider that decision, presenting the request as motions to stop the dismissal and award attorney fees and costs. The court found that he repeated arguments it had already rejected and identified no change in controlling law, new evidence, or clear error. The court also found that a case he cited concerned different issues and that the record did not support his references to agreed stipulations.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied the motion for reconsideration. The Clerk was directed to mail Marvin a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Marvin v. Allen · No. 7:23-cv-05947
- Kenneth Karas
- July 11, 2025
Background
Mark Marvin, representing himself, sued Blane Allen, Dennis Ketchom, Marie Pruschki, Kelly Eskew, Kerry Gallagher, and the County of Orange. In an earlier order, the court granted the defendants’ initial and supplemental motions to dismiss. The court dismissed Marvin’s claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court concluded it lacked authority to decide them. It determined that the Tax Injunction Act barred his claims concerning local taxes, that his Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim merely reframed the alleged denials of tax exemptions, and that his allegations about not receiving tax bills did not state a legal claim. The court gave Marvin 30 days to file a second amended complaint.
Instead, Marvin filed a motion to “arrest” the dismissal order and a motion seeking attorney fees and costs. The court treated those filings as a motion for reconsideration. Marvin proceeded without a lawyer. The defendants opposed the motion.
Reconsideration standard
The court explained that motions for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and the applicable local rule are subject to a strict standard. Such a motion is not meant to repeat arguments that the court already decided. Reconsideration is appropriate only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent serious injustice.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that Marvin repeated arguments that had already been rejected and did not identify any intervening change in the law, new evidence, or clear error. The evidence he said the court needed to reread still concerned a local tax matter that the Tax Injunction Act placed outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also found that Marvin’s reliance on Arizona v. Youngblood was misplaced because that case concerned preservation of evidence and due process, not the issues in Marvin’s case.
Marvin also referred to alleged stipulations between the parties. The court found that the record did not show that the parties had entered into those stipulations, and the defendants disputed that any such stipulations existed.
Disposition
The court denied Marvin’s motion for reconsideration. It directed the Clerk of Court to mail Marvin a copy of the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.