Fiorito v. United States

Background

Michael Fiorito filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment. He also filed a motion seeking permission to submit objections to the court’s orders. Because the second motion repeated arguments in the Rule 59(e) motion, the court treated both motions together.

The court had dismissed Fiorito’s case after reviewing his complaint. The court said that review was required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and did not violate the rule that courts generally decide only disputes presented by the parties or deny Fiorito a chance to respond. The court also said Fiorito had not identified a cognizable claim—meaning a legally recognized claim—over which the court had jurisdiction, so his request for leave to amend was meritless.

Federal Tort Claims Act arguments

The court rejected Fiorito’s argument that he could bring a Federal Tort Claims Act claim in state court. It said this argument was irrelevant because the case had been removed to federal court and incorrect because federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over Federal Tort Claims Act claims seeking money damages against the United States.

The court also rejected Fiorito’s proposed abuse-of-process theory. It said 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(2) bars incarcerated felons from bringing Federal Tort Claims Act claims for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody unless they show physical injury or the commission of a sexual act. The court added that, even if that provision did not apply, Fiorito had not alleged that the defendants had abused any legal process.

The court further held that declaratory relief was unavailable under the Federal Tort Claims Act because that statute provides jurisdiction over claims for money damages. It also rejected Fiorito’s argument that the defendants were acting outside the scope of their employment, noting that the United States was the only named defendant. The court said its earlier warning that later Federal Tort Claims Act claims filed in state court and removed to federal court might be considered frivolous was only a warning and did not support Rule 59(e) relief.

Recusal argument and disposition

Fiorito argued that the judge should recuse because of alleged errors in the dismissal order and because of the judge’s knowledge of and experience with Fiorito’s litigation tactics. The court rejected that argument, explaining that judicial rulings ordinarily are not a valid basis for claiming bias and that opinions formed during current or prior proceedings do not establish disqualifying bias unless they show deeply rooted favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.

The court ordered that Fiorito’s motions, identified as ECF Nos. 14 and 17, were DENIED. Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz did not alter or amend the judgment.