Brantley v. Tampa Police Department
- Louis Stanton
- 1:19-cv-10362
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Brantley v. Tampa Police Department, Judge Stanton denied reconsideration, denied counsel as moot, and kept the case closed.
Janae M. Brantley’s requests to reopen or obtain relief from the dismissed case were denied, and her request for counsel was denied as moot. The case remained closed, subject to the court’s stated restriction on future filings.
What happened
In Brantley v. Tampa Police Department, Janae M. Brantley, who was representing herself, asked the court to reopen a case that had already been dismissed. She filed several amended complaints and other requests after the dismissal, and her appeal was dismissed because she did not file a required form.
The court treated her request to reopen as requests to change or reconsider the judgment and as a request for relief from the judgment. The court found that she had not shown that it overlooked controlling law or facts, and had not shown any other grounds required for relief.
Judge Louis Stanton denied the motion for reconsideration and denied the request for a lawyer as moot. The case remained closed, and the court said it would accept only documents directed to the Court of Appeals unless further filings were shown to be proper.
The detailed version
- Brantley v. Tampa Police Department · No. 1:19-cv-10362
- Louis Stanton
- Feb. 10, 2021
Background
Janae M. Brantley filed the action without a lawyer against the Tampa Police Department and the other defendants listed in the caption. The court had dismissed her amended complaint on April 28, 2020, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). After that dismissal, Brantley filed a second amended complaint, a third amended complaint, a request to proceed without paying filing fees, a fourth amended complaint, a request for a court-appointed volunteer lawyer, and a motion to reopen the case. The court had previously treated the second and third amended complaints as requests for reconsideration and denied them. It also warned that continued frivolous or meritless filings could lead to an order requiring Brantley to explain why she should not be barred from filing further documents in the case. Her appeal was dismissed for failure to file an required appellate form.
Motion for Reconsideration
The court treated the August 21, 2020 motion to reopen as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment, a motion under Local Civil Rule 6.3 for reconsideration, and, alternatively, a motion under Rule 60(b) for relief from the judgment or order.
For the Rule 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3 requests, the court explained that Brantley had to show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court found that she had not made that showing and denied those requests.
The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(1) through (5), finding that Brantley had not alleged facts showing mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct by an opposing party, a void judgment, satisfaction or discharge of the judgment, or another listed ground. The court denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6) as well because Brantley had not alleged facts showing extraordinary circumstances warranting relief.
Disposition
The court denied Brantley’s motion for reconsideration. It denied her request for counsel as moot. The case was closed. The court directed the clerk to send her the order and record service on the docket. It stated that it would accept only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and again warned that continued frivolous or meritless filings could lead to an order requiring her to show cause why she should not be barred from filing further documents in the action.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.