Vives v. Bennett
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-06984
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Vives v. Bennett, Judge Swain denied Vives’s motion challenging dismissal and denied fee-free appeal status.
Luis Vives’s effort to obtain reconsideration or relief from the dismissal, and his request to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Vives v. Bennett, Luis Vives, representing himself, sent two letters challenging the Court’s December 7, 2021 dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. The earlier dismissal concerned claims arising from his 2006 arrest and relied on the rule that those claims were barred because success would call his conviction into question.
The Court treated Vives’s letters as requests to change or reconsider the judgment under several court rules, or alternatively as requests for relief from the judgment. Vives repeated the claims from his complaint and did not show that the Court had overlooked controlling law, relevant facts, or a valid reason for relief. The Court also noted that requests for house arrest or investigation of lost property at his current facility would need to be raised in a new case filed in the proper location.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion under the reconsideration and relief-from-judgment rules, including the provision for extraordinary circumstances. The Court also denied Vives permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Vives v. Bennett · No. 1:21-cv-06984
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 1, 2022
Background
Luis Vives filed the action representing himself. On December 7, 2021, the Court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court had determined that success on the claims arising from Vives’s 2006 arrest would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of his conviction. Because the conviction had not been reversed or otherwise called into question, the Court held that those claims were barred under Heck v. Humphrey.
On January 3, 2022, Vives submitted two letters challenging the dismissal. One letter asked the Court to place him on house arrest to avoid COVID-19 infection and to investigate lost property at Coxsackie Correctional Facility. The Court stated that any federal challenge concerning his current custody would have to be brought in a new civil action filed in the proper venue.
Arguments and analysis
The Court liberally treated Vives’s letters as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment and a motion under Local Civil Rule 6.3 for reconsideration. In the alternative, the Court treated them as a motion under Rule 60(b) for relief from the judgment or order.
For Rule 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3, the Court explained that Vives had to show that it overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The Court found that he instead repeated the claims from his complaint. It therefore denied the motion under Rule 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3.
The Court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(1) through (5), finding that Vives had not shown that any of those grounds applied. Those grounds include mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct by an opposing party, a void judgment, or circumstances such as satisfaction or reversal of an earlier judgment.
The Court separately denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which permits relief for another reason that justifies it. The Court found that Vives had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under that provision.
Disposition
The Court construed Vives’s letters as a motion for reconsideration and denied the motion. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk was directed to mail Vives a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.