Kraemer v. The City of New York
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-06671
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kraemer v. The City of New York, Judge Caproni denied Kraemer’s reconsideration motion and warned that continued frivolous filings could revoke his electronic filing privileges.
Thomas Kraemer, whose motion for reconsideration was denied and whose electronic filing privileges were subject to immediate revocation if he continued making frivolous filings; the defendants were affected by the order terminating pending motions and deadlines.
What happened
In Kraemer v. The City of New York, the court had already dismissed Thomas Kraemer’s case as legally and factually frivolous. It said the claims were barred by the filing deadline and by an earlier judgment, and relied on implausible allegations of persecution.
Kraemer then filed a motion asking the court to reconsider, along with discovery requests and declarations that repeated his allegations. He argued that discovery could uncover wrongdoing, including a conspiracy involving court staff. The court said those arguments did not address the reasons for the dismissal or justify reopening the case.
Judge Valerie Caproni denied the motion for reconsideration. She also ordered that Kraemer’s electronic filing privileges would be immediately revoked if he continued filing discovery motions or other frivolous papers repeating allegations from the closed case, and directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions and deadlines.
The detailed version
- Kraemer v. The City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-06671
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 29, 2020
Background
On April 24, 2020, the Court dismissed this action as legally and factually frivolous. The opinion states that the action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations and by res judicata, meaning that an earlier judgment barred relitigation of the claims. The Court also described the allegations of persecution as wholly implausible and delusional.
After the dismissal, Plaintiff Thomas Kraemer filed a motion to compel discovery, two declarations that continued to argue the merits of his case, and a motion for reconsideration. The reconsideration motion continued to request discovery from the defendants and contained insults directed at the Court and others. The opinion also notes that Kraemer was proceeding without a lawyer and had been granted electronic filing privileges subject to revocation for abuse.
Motion for Reconsideration
The Court denied the motion for reconsideration. It explained that reconsideration is available only when a party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent a serious injustice. The standard is strict and generally requires pointing to controlling decisions or information that the Court overlooked and that could reasonably change its conclusion.
The Court rejected Kraemer’s argument that discovery might reveal evidence of wrongdoing or a conspiracy involving the Court’s Pro Se Unit staff. It held that this speculation did not affect the sufficiency of the complaint or the independent grounds for dismissal—the statute of limitations and res judicata. The Court concluded that Kraemer had not met the standard for reconsideration and saw no reason to reopen the case.
Other Orders
The Court ordered that Kraemer’s electronic filing privileges would be immediately revoked if he continued submitting discovery motions or other frivolous filings that relitigated or repeated allegations from the closed case. It warned that further abuse of judicial resources could result in more severe sanctions. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all pending motions and deadlines.
Disposition
The motion for reconsideration was denied. The opinion does not state that the earlier dismissal was entered with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.