Coleson v. Parker

Background

Samuel Coleson Jr. filed the action without a lawyer and requested permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The complaint named Anita Parker, Christina Fontanez, Theon Smith, Robert Leder, and Millie Christina Aunt as defendants. The opinion describes Parker as running a church program that supervises visits between noncustodial parents and their children; Fontanez as Coleson’s ex-wife and the mother of their minor daughter, E.; Smith as Fontanez’s boyfriend; and Leder as the attorney who represented Coleson in family court.

Coleson alleged that the defendants interfered with his relationship with E. and concealed Smith’s alleged 2017 sexual assault of E. In an earlier order dated March 6, 2020, the court treated the complaint as asserting constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and on immunity grounds, explaining that Coleson had not alleged facts showing that the private defendants acted under state authority and that defendants who testified in his family-court proceedings were protected by witness immunity.

On April 23, 2020, Coleson filed a 189-page exhibit, an application to proceed without paying fees on appeal, and a filing that included a request for summary judgment and other requests under the federal civil and appellate procedure rules. One part sought an appeal “as of right.” The court treated these filings as requests to alter or amend the judgment, reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, and, alternatively, relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b).

Reconsideration and Relief from the Judgment

The court denied the motion for reconsideration. It held that Coleson had not shown that the court overlooked controlling legal authority or factual matters concerning the dismissed action.

The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b). It found that Coleson had not alleged facts supporting any of the first five grounds listed in that rule, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, or satisfaction or reversal of the judgment. The court separately denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), concluding that Coleson had not shown extraordinary circumstances warranting relief.

Proposed Appeal

The court explained that a notice of appeal must identify the judgment, order, or portion of an order being appealed. It also stated that a civil appeal generally must be filed within 30 days after judgment. Even if Coleson’s filing were treated as a notice of appeal, the court found that it did not identify the judgment or order being appealed and was untimely because judgment was entered on March 6, 2020, while the filing was submitted on April 23, 2020.

The court did not grant an extension of time. Instead, because of Coleson’s lack of counsel, it granted him permission to file an amended notice of appeal and a motion requesting an extension of time. The motion must show either excusable neglect or good cause for the late filing. The court stated that, if Coleson complied, it would review the merits of the extension request.

Disposition

The motion for reconsideration was denied, and the clerk was directed to terminate it. The application for permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal was denied. Coleson was directed to file an amended notice of appeal and a motion for an extension of time within 30 days from the order. The court stated that the action would remain closed if he failed to comply. The court also certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order.