Williams v. United States of America
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11547
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Williams v. United States, Judge McMahon denied Steven Talbert Williams’s motion to reconsider dismissal of his complaint.
The ruling directly affected Steven Talbert Williams: his motion to reconsider the dismissal was denied, and he was denied payment-free status for an appeal from this order.
What happened
In Williams v. United States of America (Department of Treasury), Steven Talbert Williams, representing himself, asked the court to reconsider its dismissal of his complaint as frivolous. He filed that request shortly before filing a notice of appeal.
The court treated his filing as requests to change or reconsider the judgment under several court rules, or alternatively to provide relief from the order. The court found that he had not shown an overlooked legal rule or fact, a valid reason for relief, or extraordinary circumstances. It denied the motion.
Judge Colleen McMahon also ruled that the appeal would not qualify for payment-free status because it was not being taken in good faith. The order denied the motion for reconsideration and directed that a copy be mailed to Williams.
The detailed version
- Williams v. United States of America · No. 1:19-cv-11547
- Colleen McMahon
- May 8, 2020
Background
Steven Talbert Williams filed the action without a lawyer. In an order entered January 27, 2020, the court dismissed his complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court also ordered him to explain why it should not require him to obtain permission before filing any new civil actions without paying the filing fee.
On January 28, 2020, Williams filed a submission concerning the intervention of New York State Attorney General Leticia James. The court interpreted that submission as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment, a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, and, alternatively, a motion under Rule 60(b) for relief from an order or judgment. Williams filed a notice of appeal on February 3, 2020.
Jurisdiction
The court concluded that it had authority to decide the motion even though Williams had filed a notice of appeal. Because Williams filed the motion within 28 days after the dismissal order was entered, and before the district court ruled on it, the notice of appeal did not yet become effective under the appellate rules.
Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3
The court held that Williams had not shown that it overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented to it. It therefore denied his motion under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3.
Relief under Rule 60(b)
Rule 60(b) permits relief from an order or judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct by an opposing party, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. The court found that Williams had not alleged facts supporting any of the first five grounds.
The court also considered Rule 60(b)(6), which applies for other reasons and requires a timely request and extraordinary circumstances. The court found that Williams had not alleged facts showing extraordinary circumstances and denied relief under that provision as well.
Disposition
The court denied Williams’s motion for reconsideration. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied payment-free status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to mail Williams a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.