Davis v. President Donald Trump
Raheem Davis v. President Donald Trump; U.S. Attorney General; George W. Bush; Joe Biden; Barack Obama; U.S. Supreme Court
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-02101
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Raheem Davis v. Trump, Judge Swain denied reconsideration of the dismissal and denied fee status for any appeal.
Raheem Davis’s case was closed after the court denied his motion for reconsideration. The order also denied him fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Raheem Davis v. President Donald Trump, Raheem Davis asked the court to reconsider its earlier dismissal of his case. The court had dismissed the case under a rule limiting incarcerated people who have repeatedly filed cases without paying filing fees, unless they show an immediate risk of serious physical injury.
The court treated Davis’s filing as requests to change the judgment and to obtain relief from the judgment. It found that he had not shown that the court overlooked controlling law or facts, and had not shown a valid reason or exceptional circumstances for relief. The court also found that his allegations did not establish an immediate danger of physical injury.
Judge Swain denied the reconsideration motion, directed the clerk to close the case, and denied fee-free status for any appeal because an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Davis v. President Donald Trump · No. 1:25-cv-02101
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 9, 2025
Background
Raheem Davis filed this action without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. The court previously dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which limits a prisoner’s ability to proceed without paying when the prisoner has previously had three cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, unless the new complaint shows an imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Davis filed a motion for reconsideration. The court treated the filing as both a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment and a motion under Rule 60(b) for relief from the judgment.
Rule 59(e) ruling
A Rule 59(e) motion requires the moving party to show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court found that Davis had not made that showing and denied the motion under Rule 59(e).
Rule 60(b) ruling
Rule 60(b) permits relief from a judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, or satisfaction of the judgment. The court found that Davis had not shown that any of the first five grounds applied and denied relief under those provisions.
The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which covers other reasons that could justify relief. The court held that Davis had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for that relief. In particular, the court characterized his allegations about being stabbed by hologram swords through a military satellite, being held hostage, and being tortured as fanciful allegations that did not establish an imminent danger of physical injury. The court stated that these allegations repeated the same frivolous allegations made in his earlier submissions.
Disposition
The court denied Davis’s motion for reconsideration, directed the clerk to terminate all motions and enter a civil judgment, and closed the action. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Davis permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.