Hudson v. Forman
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-11192
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hudson v. Forman, Judge Briccetti denied Hudson’s reconsideration request after dismissing his case and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
Robert Hudson’s request for reconsideration was denied, and he was denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The earlier dismissal of his complaint remained in place.
What happened
In Hudson v. Forman, the court had already dismissed Robert Hudson’s complaint based on several immunities, failure to state a claim, and frivolousness. It had also denied as moot a motion to dismiss filed by certain defendants.
Hudson, who was representing himself, submitted a filing asking the court to consider his response and, if necessary, reconsider the dismissal. The court treated the filing as an opposition to the earlier motion to dismiss but found that no such motion remained pending.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied Hudson’s request for reconsideration because Hudson did not identify a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Hudson v. Forman · No. 7:19-cv-11192
- Vincent Briccetti
- Feb. 6, 2020
Background
In an Order of Dismissal dated January 17, 2020, the court dismissed Robert Hudson’s complaint under Eleventh Amendment immunity, prosecutorial immunity, judicial immunity, failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and frivolousness. The same order denied as moot a motion to dismiss filed by the Dutchess County Clerk, Thomas Angell, the Dutchess County Attorney, the County of Dutchess, and the Dutchess County District Attorney.
Hudson was proceeding without a lawyer. In a filing dated January 25, 2020, titled “Complainant Response To Defendants Answer to Complaint, If Decision Already Entered, Application for Reconsideration,” he responded to the earlier motion to dismiss and requested reconsideration if the court had already entered a decision. The court construed the filing as an opposition to the motion to dismiss, but explained that the case had already been dismissed and that the motion had already been denied as moot.
Ruling
To the extent Hudson requested reconsideration of the Order of Dismissal, the court denied the request. The court stated that Hudson had not shown an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, a need to correct clear error, or a need to prevent manifest injustice.
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. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to terminate Hudson’s motion, and court staff were directed to mail this order and the earlier dismissal order to Hudson at the addresses identified in the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.