Vazquez-Diaz v. Doe
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-03447
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Vazquez-Diaz v. Doe, Judge Swain denied Vazquez-Diaz’s motion challenging his filing bar and the earlier dismissal.
Luis A. Vazquez-Diaz’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fee and to continue litigating this action; the case’s defendants are also affected because the action remains closed.
What happened
In Vazquez-Diaz v. Doe, Luis A. Vazquez-Diaz asked the court to reconsider an earlier order that denied him permission to proceed without paying filing fees and dismissed his case without prejudice. The earlier order found that he had three or more qualifying prior cases or appeals and did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical harm.
Vazquez-Diaz argued that the filing bar should not apply because he had not previously filed a complaint about losing money and property. The court said that argument did not address the reason for the bar and found that he had not shown any imminent danger when he filed this case.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion under the rules for changing or reconsidering a judgment and under the rule allowing relief from a judgment. The court terminated all other pending matters, directed the clerk not to accept further filings in the closed case except papers for the Court of Appeals, and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Vazquez-Diaz v. Doe · No. 1:21-cv-03447
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 6, 2022
Background
Luis A. Vazquez-Diaz filed this action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. In an earlier order, the court found that, while he was a prisoner, he had filed at least three actions or appeals that had been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), this prevented him from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless he alleged facts showing that he was in imminent danger of serious physical harm.
The court previously denied his request to proceed without paying the fee and dismissed the action without prejudice. Vazquez-Diaz then filed a submission opposing the filing bar. The court treated that submission as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, and, alternatively, a request for relief from the order under Rule 60(b).
Arguments and analysis
Vazquez-Diaz argued that he should not be barred because he had never filed a complaint about the loss of money and property. The court concluded that this argument was irrelevant to its earlier finding that he had three or more qualifying prior dismissals and was barred under Section 1915(g). The court also stated that he did not allege facts suggesting that he was in imminent danger of serious physical harm when he filed the complaint.
For a Rule 59(e) or Local Civil Rule 6.3 motion, the party must show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court found that Vazquez-Diaz had not made that showing. The court separately found that he had not established any of the grounds for relief listed in Rule 60(b)(1) through (5), or extraordinary circumstances supporting relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
Disposition
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Vazquez-Diaz’s motion opposing the filing bar. The court terminated all other pending matters in the action and directed the clerk not to accept further submissions under the closed action, except papers directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.