Brodeur v. The City & State of NY
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-01532
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brodeur v. The City & State of NY, Judge McMahon denied reconsideration of the earlier dismissal and denied fee-free appeal status.
Christopher X. Brodeur’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and he was denied permission to appeal without paying the applicable fees.
What happened
In Christopher X. Brodeur v. The City & State of NY, et al., the court had dismissed Brodeur’s self-represented case without prejudice because he had not filed an application to proceed without paying filing fees or paid the required fees. Brodeur later filed a motion asking for rehearing, redress, and basic due process.
The court treated that filing as a request to change the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3. It explained that Brodeur had to show that the court overlooked controlling legal decisions or factual matters previously presented to it.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied the motion because Brodeur had not made that showing. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Brodeur v. The City & State of NY · No. 1:19-cv-01532
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 4, 2020
Background
By an order and judgment dated May 31, 2019, and entered June 3, 2019, the court dismissed Brodeur’s self-represented action without prejudice. The stated reason was Brodeur’s failure to file an application to proceed without paying filing fees or to pay the relevant fees.
On June 25, 2019, Brodeur filed a submission titled a “man’s motion for ‘rehearing’/redress/basic due process.” The court construed that submission as both a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that the standards for both types of motions are the same. A person seeking this relief must show that the court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that had already been presented. The court also explained that these motions are narrowly construed and are not an opportunity to repeat arguments, present new theories, or submit new evidence in response to the court’s ruling.
The court found that Brodeur had not shown that it overlooked any controlling legal decisions or factual matters that would justify vacating the May 31, 2019 order and judgment.
Ruling
Judge Colleen McMahon denied Brodeur’s motion under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3. The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail Brodeur a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the applicable fees for that appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.