Scott v. Tonkin

Background

Tonia’ Scott proceeded without a lawyer. On February 18, 2021, the court dismissed her action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. The court had stated that Scott needed to seek permission before filing a new action without paying the filing fee, and she had not done so.

Scott filed a notice of appeal on March 9, 2021. The district court sent that notice to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit two days later. On March 10, the court received three additional submissions from Scott: a letter asking the court to accept a 2,818-carat natural emerald with an appraisal value of $1,432,163 based on a March 2014 valuation; a petition to add defendants, including the Pennsylvania Attorney General, together with a request for a temporary restraining order; and a petition to change venue and add defendants.

Court’s Analysis

The court liberally construed Scott’s submissions as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment, a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, and, alternatively, a motion under Rule 60(b) for relief from a judgment or order.

Ordinarily, filing a notice of appeal transfers authority over the appealed aspects of a case to the court of appeals. But Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A) allows a district court to decide a timely Rule 59 or Rule 60 motion filed within 28 days after judgment. Because Scott’s submissions were filed within that period, the court determined that it had authority to consider them.

For reconsideration, Scott had to show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court explained that reconsideration is not available merely to relitigate an issue already decided. Under Rule 60(b), relief may be available for specified reasons such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief.

Disposition

The court denied Scott’s requests because her new submissions did not suggest that the earlier dismissal was erroneous. The court’s conclusion relied on the earlier finding that Scott had not sought permission to file a new action without paying the filing fee. The conclusion of the order states that Scott’s motions for relief, docket entries 4 through 6, construed as a motion for reconsideration, were denied. The court also directed the clerk to mail the order to Scott and stated that all other pending matters in the action were terminated.