Rosenberg v. City of New York

Background

Chief Judge McMahon had dismissed this action without prejudice on May 28, 2020, because it duplicated a substantially similar action under docket number 20-CV-3911. She stated that claims arising from the same events should be included in one lawsuit and that Rudy Rosenberg could amend the complaint in the other action. The opinion states that Eltha Jordan and Jacqueline Rosenberg were dismissed as plaintiffs in the other action after they did not submit applications to proceed without paying filing fees. They also did not submit those applications in this action, so the court treated Rudy Rosenberg as the sole plaintiff.

After this action was closed, Rosenberg filed two applications labeled requests for an order to explain or clarify the prior order, reconsideration, and a temporary restraining order. He also moved for Chief Judge McMahon’s recusal. The two actions were reassigned to Judge Louis L. Stanton.

Recusal request

Because this action was closed and reassigned, the court denied the motion seeking Chief Judge McMahon’s recusal as moot, meaning the court found that the request no longer presented a live issue. The court also stated that nothing in Rosenberg’s application would cause an objective observer to infer bias and that the application did not appear to show a basis for recusal.

Motion for reconsideration

The court treated Rosenberg’s submission as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment. The court explained that such a motion requires showing that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. It concluded that Rosenberg had not shown that the court overlooked any controlling legal authority or relevant facts concerning the dismissal. The court therefore denied the motion for reconsideration.

Request to restrict public access

Although the case was closed, the court considered Rosenberg’s request to restrict public access because the docket had been opened under his true name despite his request to proceed anonymously. The court noted the general presumption that the public may access court filings and the rule requiring a complaint’s title to name all parties.

Rosenberg argued that public access could expose allegations that defendants had harmed his reputation and emotional and physical well-being. The court held that alleged reputational harm was not enough to overcome the presumption of public access. It also noted that Rosenberg had previously been denied permission to proceed anonymously. The court therefore denied his request to restrict public access to the pleadings.

Disposition

The conclusion states that Rosenberg’s motions identified as ECF Nos. 8-9 and his request to proceed anonymously were denied. The Clerk was directed to mail him the order, send him docket sheets for this action and the action under docket number 20-CV-3911, and note service on the docket. This action was closed, while the other action remained pending as of the order’s date.