Kang v. United States
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-06206
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kang v. United States, Judge McMahon denied Kang’s reconsideration motion after dismissing his case for incomplete financial disclosure.
Kai Kang, whose request to reconsider the dismissal of his action was denied; the court also barred further filings under this docket number except papers directed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
What happened
Kai Kang sued the United States and asked to proceed without paying the filing fees. The court found that his applications did not fully disclose his financial information and dismissed the action without prejudice.
Kang then asked the court to reconsider that dismissal. The court treated his request as a motion to change the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and as a motion for reconsideration under a local court rule.
Judge McMahon denied the motion because Kang did not show that the court had overlooked controlling legal decisions or previously submitted facts. The clerk was directed to accept no further filings from Kang in this case, except papers directed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The detailed version
- Kang v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-06206
- Colleen McMahon
- Oct. 28, 2020
Background
Kai Kang appeared without a lawyer and sought permission to bring the action without paying the filing fees. The court had directed him either to pay the applicable fees or submit an amended application explaining his finances. After reviewing the applications he submitted, the court concluded that they did not correct the failure to fully disclose his financial information. On September 21, 2020, the court dismissed the action without prejudice.
On September 28, 2020, Kang filed a motion for reconsideration. The court treated the motion as one seeking to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), and also as a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3.
Legal standard
The court stated that both rules require the moving party to show that the court overlooked controlling legal decisions or factual matters that had already been presented. The court also explained that these motions are narrowly applied and cannot be used simply to repeat arguments, introduce new theories, or submit new evidence in response to the court’s ruling.
Ruling
Judge Colleen McMahon held that Kang had not shown that the court overlooked any controlling decision or previously presented fact that would justify vacating the September 21 dismissal. The court therefore denied relief under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3, denied the motion, and directed the clerk to terminate the motion from the docket. The court also directed the clerk to accept no further submissions from Kang under this docket number, except papers directed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.