Straw v. Dentons US LLP

Background

Andrew U.D. Straw, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Dentons US LLP, Kevin P. McGoff, Indiana University-McKinney School of Law, and Thompson West Publisher. Straw challenged language the defendants published concerning the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision suspending him from practicing law for 180 days. He alleged that the publication was retaliation for his work supporting the Americans with Disabilities Act and was intended to cause emotional distress. He sought damages, an injunction requiring removal of the language, and declaratory relief, including a declaration that some of his past lawsuits were not frivolous.

The court had granted Straw permission to proceed without paying filing fees. Judge Stanton then dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires dismissal of a fee-exempt case that fails to state a legally sufficient claim. Straw sought Judge Stanton’s recusal, citing Judge Stanton’s prior dismissal of a similar case and Judge Stanton’s former Marine Corps service. Judge Stanton granted the recusal request and granted reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), referring the case for review by another judge. Straw also filed a notice of appeal.

Jurisdiction and reconsideration

Judge Koeltl explained that a timely motion seeking to alter a judgment or obtain relief from it generally prevents a notice of appeal from becoming effective until the district court resolves that motion. Because Straw filed his affidavit seven days after judgment, the court treated the request as timely under the relevant rules. Judge Koeltl also stated that, if necessary, he would treat the request as seeking an indicative ruling under Rule 62.1, which permits a district court to state how it would rule when an appeal might otherwise limit its authority.

Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy. Under Rule 59(e), it generally requires an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Under Rule 60(b)(6), the movant must show extraordinary circumstances justifying relief. The court found that Straw made neither showing and identified no overlooked facts or law.

Ruling

The court independently reviewed the complaint and concluded that Judge Stanton’s dismissal was correct. It stated that the defendants had a First Amendment right to disseminate and describe the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision. It also concluded that Straw had not plausibly alleged a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act or a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The court denied the motion for reconsideration and again dismissed Straw’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Clerk was directed to close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.