Baltimore v. Biben

Background

Tracy Baltimore filed the action as power of attorney for her adult son, Lamar Davenport, who was incarcerated. She proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. Invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, she alleged that Judge Ellen Biben and Prosecutor Alvin Bragg violated Davenport’s rights during his criminal proceedings. She sought Davenport’s release from custody and money damages.

In an earlier order, the court dismissed the complaint. It dismissed the claims against Biben and Bragg because the court held that the defendants were immune from suit. It also dismissed Baltimore’s § 1983 claims because a nonlawyer may not represent another person or file documents on that person’s behalf. Because Baltimore sought Davenport’s immediate release, the court treated that request as seeking a challenge to custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court held that she had not shown that she could proceed as Davenport’s authorized representative in such a custody case and dismissed those related claims without prejudice to Davenport filing his own petition.

Motions Before the Court

After the dismissal, Baltimore filed motions to strike the dismissal order and civil judgment, seek sanctions for alleged judicial misconduct, vacate the dismissal, reassign the judge, and obtain emergency reconsideration. She objected to the timing of the case’s reassignment. She also filed a custody petition and supporting affidavit on Davenport’s behalf.

The court treated her requests for reconsideration as including motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), Local Civil Rule 6.3, and Rule 60(b). Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3 require a party to show that the court overlooked controlling law or facts previously presented. Rule 60(b) allows relief from an order or judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, or extraordinary circumstances under the rule’s final provision.

Recusal and Sanctions

Recusal means a judge’s removal from a case because impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The court explained that dissatisfaction with judicial rulings generally provides grounds for an appeal, not recusal. Baltimore did not state facts showing that the judge had deep-seated favoritism or hostility that would make a fair decision impossible. The court therefore denied the motion for recusal, reassignment, or sanctions.

Reconsideration

The court found that Baltimore had not identified any controlling decision or factual matter that it had overlooked when dismissing the action. It therefore denied the motions under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3.

The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b). It found that Baltimore had not shown that any of the grounds in the rule’s first five provisions applied. As to Rule 60(b)(6), the court found no extraordinary circumstances justifying relief. The court therefore denied the Rule 60(b) motion as well.

Disposition

The court denied the motions seeking recusal and reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all outstanding matters. The matter remains closed. This order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits; it addressed Baltimore’s requests to remove the judge, impose sanctions, and obtain relief from the earlier dismissal.