Chambers v. Kirby Psych
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:17-cv-06315
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Chambers v. Kirby Psych, Judge McMahon denied amendment as moot, denied reconsideration, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Sonny Chambers, who sought to amend his already-dismissed complaint, seek relief from the judgment, or seek reconsideration; the order also limits further filings in the closed case and denies permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
Chambers v. Kirby Psych was brought by Sonny Chambers, who represented himself and alleged that unidentified people at Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Facility failed to protect him from several assaults. The court ordered him to amend his complaint, but he did not do so, and the case was dismissed on December 12, 2017. The Second Circuit later dismissed his appeal.
In August 2019, Chambers asked to amend his original complaint and add claims based on events that occurred in 2018. Because the case was already closed, the court treated the amendment request as moot. It also considered whether the filing could be a request to undo the earlier judgment or for reconsideration.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied the motion to amend as moot and denied it to the extent it sought reconsideration. She also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees and directed the Clerk of Court to accept no further filings in the closed case, except papers directed to the Second Circuit.
The detailed version
- Chambers v. Kirby Psych · No. 1:17-cv-06315
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 26, 2019
Background
Sonny Chambers filed the action without a lawyer, alleging that unidentified persons at Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Facility failed to protect him from several assaults. On September 19, 2017, the court ordered Chambers to file an amended complaint within 60 days and warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal on immunity and frivolousness grounds. Chambers did not file the required amended complaint, and the court dismissed the complaint on December 12, 2017. The Second Circuit later dismissed Chambers's appeal as lacking an arguable basis in law or fact.
On August 13, 2019, Chambers filed an application titled “Amendment # 2-Motion.” He sought to amend portions of his original complaint and add claims based on events that occurred in 2018, after the case had been dismissed. The opinion also notes that Chambers had filed a one-page paper captioned “Amendment to Complaint” while his appeal was pending.
Court's Analysis
The court held that a motion to amend a complaint in a closed case was moot because both the district court case and the appeal had already been dismissed. Chambers did not provide a reason to reopen the matter.
The court also considered the filing under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a party to seek relief from a judgment or order for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or other extraordinary circumstances. The court concluded that any request based on mistake, newly discovered evidence, or opposing-party misconduct was untimely because it was filed more than one year after the December 12, 2017 order and civil judgment. The court also found that Chambers did not allege facts supporting any of the first five Rule 60(b) grounds or extraordinary circumstances under the sixth ground. To the extent the submission sought reconsideration, the court found no legal or factual basis to question the earlier dismissal.
Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon denied Chambers's motion to amend the complaint as moot. To the extent the submission could be construed as a motion for reconsideration, the court also denied it. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Chambers, note service on the docket, and accept no further submissions under the closed case number except papers directed to the Second Circuit. The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.