Bey v. Trump
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-05574
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Bey v. Trump, Judge Ramos denied Bey’s motions asking the court to restore the case and reconsider its earlier dismissal.
Messiah Ali Bey, who represented himself, was affected by the denial of his motions to restore the complaint and seek reconsideration; the action remained dismissed.
What happened
In Bey v. Trump, the court had earlier dismissed Messiah Ali Bey’s action because it was barred by protections for the president and the government. The court also denied permission to amend the complaint because amendment would not have helped.
Bey, representing himself, later asked the court to restore the complaint to the calendar. He also filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its earlier decision.
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied both motions for the reasons stated in the court’s earlier order and directed the clerk to close the motions.
The detailed version
- Bey v. Trump · No. 1:20-cv-05574
- Edgardo Ramos
- Sept. 24, 2020
Background
Messiah Ali Bey brought the action against Donald J. Trump, doing business as the United States, and the Estate of Abraham Lincoln. The court had dismissed the action on July 27, 2020, concluding that presidential immunity and sovereign immunity barred it and that it was frivolous. The court also denied Bey leave to amend because amendment would have been futile, meaning it would not have cured the identified problems.
Motions
Bey, who was representing himself, filed a motion on August 17, 2020, asking the court to “restore the complaint to the calendar.” On September 8, 2020, he filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits requests for relief from a judgment or order, seeking reconsideration.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied both motions. The court stated that it did so for the reasons set out in its July 27 order and directed the clerk to terminate the two motions, identified as Documents 6 and 7. The opinion does not state that the court reconsidered the underlying dismissal on its merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.