Pacheco v. 30th Precinct
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11915
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Pacheco v. 30th Precinct, Judge McMahon denied reconsideration of the complaint’s earlier dismissal for failure to submit a proper fee-waiver application.
Rodolfo Pacheco, whose reconsideration motion and new fee-waiver application were denied or terminated; the underlying complaint remained dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
In Pacheco v. 30th Precinct, Rodolfo Pacheco filed a complaint without paying the required filing fee and asked to proceed without prepaying it. The court found his applications incomplete and dismissed the complaint without prejudice after he did not submit another completed application or pay the fee.
Pacheco later filed a new fee-waiver application and asked the court to reconsider. The court treated that request as a motion seeking relief from the earlier judgment, but found that his submission did not address his failure to follow the court’s filing instructions or establish a valid reason for reopening the case.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied the motion, directed the clerk to terminate the new fee-waiver application, and barred further filings under that docket number except papers directed to the Second Circuit. The court also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Pacheco v. 30th Precinct · No. 1:19-cv-11915
- Colleen McMahon
- Sept. 23, 2020
Background
Rodolfo Pacheco filed the complaint without the $400 filing fee and requested permission to proceed without prepaying the fee. The court found his first fee-waiver application inadequate and directed him to file an amended application. After finding the amended application deficient, the court ordered him to file a completed second amended application within 30 days or pay the filing fee. The order warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal.
Pacheco did neither. By order and judgment dated May 6, 2020, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. More than four months later, Pacheco submitted a new fee-waiver application, a motion for reconsideration, and a supporting declaration.
Motion for Reconsideration
The court treated the request for reconsideration as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits relief from a judgment or order for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or other extraordinary circumstances.
Pacheco’s submission asserted that he was being surveilled, targeted, assaulted, discredited, and tortured, and that technology was causing ringing in his ears, headaches, and body pain. The court concluded that these assertions did not address his failure to submit a compliant second amended fee-waiver application. Even reading the motion liberally, the court found no basis under the first five parts of Rule 60(b) and no extraordinary circumstances warranting relief under the rule’s final provision.
Ruling and Effect
Judge Colleen McMahon denied Pacheco’s motion for reconsideration. The clerk was directed to terminate the new fee-waiver application and mail Pacheco a copy of the order. The court stated that Pacheco could pursue his claims by filing a new case with the required fee or a completed fee-waiver application.
The court also directed the clerk not to accept further submissions under this docket number, except papers directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court denied reconsideration based on failure to comply with filing requirements and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.