Kellom v. Craig B. Thompson
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-05811
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Diane Kellom v. Craig B. Thompson, Judge Swain denied reconsideration because the filing was late and no grounds for relief were shown.
The order affects Diane Kellom’s request to undo the earlier dismissal. The request was denied, the earlier dismissal was not disturbed, and fee-free status was denied for any appeal from this order.
What happened
Diane Kellom v. Craig B. Thompson began with the Court’s dismissal of the complaint because Plaintiff had not paid the required filing fee or submitted an application to proceed without paying it upfront. The Clerk entered judgment on September 5, 2025.
Plaintiff asked the Court to reconsider that dismissal under two federal rules. The Court denied the request under the rule requiring a filing within 28 days because Plaintiff filed the motion on October 15, 2025. The Court also found no basis for relief under the other rule, including no extraordinary circumstances, and noted that Plaintiff still had not paid the fee or submitted an application to proceed without paying it upfront.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion for reconsideration, directed the Clerk to terminate all motions, and denied fee-free status for any appeal because the Court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Kellom v. Craig B. Thompson · No. 1:25-cv-05811
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 24, 2025
Background
Diane Kellom filed the action without a lawyer. On September 3, 2025, the Court dismissed the complaint because Plaintiff had neither paid the $405 filing fee required for a civil action nor filed an application to proceed without prepaying fees. The Clerk entered a civil judgment on September 5, 2025.
On October 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider the dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Rule 60(b).
Rule 59(e) request
Rule 59(e) permits a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment, but the motion must be filed no later than 28 days after judgment. The Court held that Plaintiff’s motion was untimely because judgment was entered on September 5 and the motion was not filed until October 15. The Court therefore denied the request under Rule 59(e).
Rule 60(b) request
Rule 60(b) allows relief from an order or judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason that justifies relief. The Court held that Plaintiff had not shown that any of the first five listed grounds applied.
The Court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which applies only for reasons different from those listed in the first five clauses and requires a reasonable filing time and extraordinary circumstances. Plaintiff repeated the argument that requiring payment of the filing fee or submission of an application to proceed without prepaying fees violated federal constitutional rights. The Court stated that the Supreme Court has upheld filing fees and that fees may be waived when a completed application establishes that the applicant cannot pay. Plaintiff had not paid the fee or submitted such an application. The Court therefore found no extraordinary circumstances warranting relief.
Disposition
The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk was directed to terminate all motions in the action. The Court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.