Nazer v. United States of America
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-06836
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Nazer v. United States, Judge McMahon denied reconsideration and denied as moot requests for electronic filing and appointed counsel.
Izzat Nazer’s requests for reconsideration, electronic case filing, appointment of counsel, and permission to appeal without paying filing fees were denied; the federal defendants were not otherwise affected by the order.
What happened
In Nazer v. United States of America, Izzat Nazer asked the court to reopen a case that it had dismissed as frivolous on September 23, 2020. Nazer represented himself.
Nazer argued that documents he had sent by email contained facts supporting his claims but had not been added to the case record. He also argued that his claims were not frivolous merely because the defendants’ alleged actions seemed unreasonable.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied Nazer’s request to reconsider or change the dismissal under the cited court rules. She also denied as moot his requests to participate in electronic filing and for appointment of counsel. The court further denied his request to proceed without paying fees on any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Nazer v. United States of America · No. 1:20-cv-06836
- Colleen McMahon
- Oct. 15, 2020
Background
Izzat Nazer filed the action without a lawyer. On September 23, 2020, the court dismissed his complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). On October 6, 2020, Nazer filed a “Request to Reopen Case,” challenging that dismissal.
The court treated the filing as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment and under Local Civil Rule 6.3 for reconsideration. Alternatively, the court treated it as a motion under Rule 60(b) seeking relief from the judgment or order.
Arguments and Analysis
Nazer asserted that he had submitted additional documents with his complaint by email and that those documents contained facts supporting his claims. He also argued that the alleged unreasonable conduct of the defendants did not mean that the conduct had not occurred. He attached 54 pages of documents to his motion. The court stated that the documents might be the materials he said he had submitted, but they had not been docketed. The court reviewed them and concluded that any new facts in them did not change its earlier conclusion that the complaint should be dismissed.
For a motion under Rule 59(e) or Local Civil Rule 6.3, the court explained that the movant must show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court found that Nazer had not shown that it overlooked any controlling law, so it denied the motion under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3.
The court also considered Rule 60(b). It found that Nazer had not alleged facts showing that any of the grounds in Rule 60(b)(1) through (5) applied. It separately denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), finding that he had not alleged extraordinary circumstances warranting relief.
Ruling
The court denied Nazer’s motion for reconsideration. It also denied as moot his motion to participate in electronic case filing and his request for appointment of counsel. The court directed the Clerk to mail him a copy of the order and record service on the docket. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.