Smith v. Sanyo Corporation

Background

On December 2, 2016, the court barred Charmane Smith from filing any new action without paying filing fees unless she first obtained the court’s permission. Smith later filed this action and requested permission to proceed without paying fees, but she did not seek the required advance permission. On January 17, 2020, the court dismissed this action without prejudice because Smith had not complied with the filing restriction.

On February 20, 2020, Smith moved for relief from the dismissal and judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows a court to provide relief from a judgment for specified reasons or, in extraordinary circumstances, for another justified reason. She also asked under 28 U.S.C. § 455 that the court disqualify itself, meaning that the judge step aside.

Motion to Recuse

Smith sought the recusal of the judges involved in her cases. The court explained that a judge must step aside when the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned, but that prior rulings against a litigant, standing alone, are not enough. Smith’s request was based on her disagreement with the earlier filing restriction and dismissals. The court found that she alleged no facts showing a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. It therefore denied the motion for recusal.

Motion for Relief from the Judgment

Smith challenged the validity of the 2016 filing restriction and argued that the court had committed fraud and imposed sanctions without due process, particularly because she allegedly had not first received an order requiring her to explain why the restriction should not be imposed. The court found that assertion untrue. It stated that, in the earlier round of this case, Smith had received an order to show cause and failed to respond before the filing restriction was issued.

The court found no facts supporting Smith’s allegations of fraud or violations of her rights. It also found that Smith had not shown that any of the first five grounds listed in Rule 60(b) applied or that extraordinary circumstances justified relief under the sixth ground. Because she presented no legal or factual matter undermining the dismissal, the court denied reconsideration.

Disposition

Judge Colleen McMahon’s order denied Smith’s motion for reconsideration and recusal. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Smith and record service on the docket. All other pending matters were terminated. The court also directed the Clerk to accept no further submissions under this docket number, except papers directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Finally, the court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Smith permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.