Caldwell v. New York City Department of Law
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-08835
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Boisey Caldwell v. New York City Department of Law, Judge McMahon denied Caldwell’s requests to reconsider or undo the earlier dismissal.
Boisey Caldwell’s motion was denied, the case was closed, and the court denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Boisey Caldwell v. New York City Department of Law, Boisey Caldwell asked the court to reconsider the dismissal of his complaint or grant him relief from the judgment. The court had dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the Court of Appeals later dismissed Caldwell’s appeal.
The court treated Caldwell’s filing as requests under several federal and local rules. It found that he had not shown that the court overlooked controlling law or facts, and had not shown grounds such as mistake, new evidence, misconduct, or extraordinary circumstances that would justify relief.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied the motion for summary judgment and reconsideration. The case was closed, the court limited future filings in the case to documents directed to the Court of Appeals, and it denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees because the appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Caldwell v. New York City Department of Law · No. 1:19-cv-08835
- Colleen McMahon
- May 21, 2020
Background
Boisey Caldwell filed the action without a lawyer against the New York City Department of Law and Officer Geronimo German. On November 22, 2019, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court’s footnote states that the claims against Officer German were dismissed without prejudice to Caldwell’s pending claims against the same officer in another case.
Caldwell filed a notice of appeal and later filed a motion for summary judgment. On May 15, 2020, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because it lacked an arguable basis in law or fact.
Caldwell’s Motion
The court liberally construed Caldwell’s motion for summary judgment as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment and under Local Civil Rule 6.3 for reconsideration. In the alternative, the court treated it as a motion under Rule 60(b) for relief from a judgment or order.
Rule 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3
The court explained that these standards are the same. A person seeking reconsideration must show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court found that Caldwell had not made that showing. It therefore denied his motion under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3.
Rule 60(b)
Rule 60(b) allows relief from a judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief.
The court found that Caldwell had not alleged facts showing that any of the first five grounds applied and denied relief under those provisions. The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which requires a reason different from the first five grounds and extraordinary circumstances warranting relief. The court found that Caldwell had not alleged facts showing extraordinary circumstances.
Other Orders
The court noted that Caldwell had filed approximately fourteen cases in the Circuit and that an earlier warning remained in effect: further frivolous or otherwise nonmeritorious litigation could lead to an order barring him from filing new actions without paying filing fees unless he first received permission.
The court denied Caldwell’s motion for summary judgment and reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate it. The case was closed. The court stated that it would accept only documents directed to the Court of Appeals for filing in the case. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Caldwell permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.