Koger v. Richardson
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-09053
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Koger v. Richardson, Judge Ramos denied the pro se plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider dismissal of their frivolous action.
The four pro se plaintiffs—Frederick S. Koger, Roslyn O. Drew, Amanda Z. Koger, and Megan E. Koger—whose motion for reconsideration was denied; the ruling left the earlier dismissal of their action undisturbed.
What happened
In Koger v. Richardson, the plaintiffs challenged a 2005 Family Court finding that Frederick S. Koger and Roslyn O. Drew had committed educational neglect. They argued that the petitions starting that proceeding were defective and that Janet DiFiore failed to act as Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals.
The federal court had dismissed the plaintiffs’ action on October 10, 2019, on its own initiative and with prejudice, finding it frivolous. The plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider, arguing that new evidence and a “but for” theory showed that the case should not have proceeded.
Judge Ramos denied reconsideration. He ruled that the plaintiffs could not present new facts in such a motion and had repeated an argument the court had already rejected; they did not identify an overlooked legal or factual issue.
The detailed version
- Koger v. Richardson · No. 1:19-cv-09053
- Edgardo Ramos
- Aug. 5, 2020
Background
Frederick S. Koger, Roslyn O. Drew, Amanda Z. Koger, and Megan E. Koger, proceeding without lawyers, challenged a New York Family Court proceeding concerning educational neglect. In 2002, an Administration for Children’s Services caseworker filed petitions alleging that Amanda and Megan had missed substantial amounts of school and that their parents had not attended required meetings or followed the required home-schooling procedures. The Family Court temporarily placed the children in agency custody, returned them eleven days later, and later found by a preponderance of the evidence that the parents had committed educational neglect.
The plaintiffs alleged that the petitions were defective because they lacked stamps or dates from the Family Court clerk and therefore did not establish subject-matter jurisdiction. They also alleged that Janet DiFiore, identified in the opinion as Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, failed to act. The plaintiffs’ 2019 action was their fourth action in the district concerning the same Family Court proceeding. On October 10, 2019, the court dismissed the action on its own initiative and with prejudice as frivolous, reasoning that judges generally have absolute immunity from lawsuits seeking money damages for judicial acts and that the complaint did not show a potentially valid claim against either defendant.
Motion for Reconsideration
The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when a party identifies a controlling legal change, new evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. It is not a way to repeat rejected arguments, offer new facts, or obtain another hearing on the same issues.
The plaintiffs argued that evidence would shed new light on the case and again presented a “but for” theory: they claimed the case would not have occurred if a different Family Court judge had not accepted the allegedly defective petitions filed by the agency. The court stated that it had already rejected this argument in its earlier decision. It also ruled that new facts could not be considered in a reconsideration motion. Apart from repeating the “but for” theory, the plaintiffs did not identify any factual or legal issue that the court had overlooked.
Disposition
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and directed the clerk to terminate the motion. The opinion does not alter the court’s earlier dismissal, which it describes as having been entered with prejudice.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.