Roe v. Data Advantage Group, Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-01397
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In John Roe v. Data Advantage Group, Inc., Judge Swain denied John Roe’s request to undo the dismissal and filing bar, leaving the case closed.
John Roe, whose request to undo the earlier dismissal and filing bar was denied. The case remains closed, and the Clerk will not accept further filings under the case number except papers directed to the Second Circuit.
What happened
In John Roe v. Data Advantage Group, Inc., John Roe asked the court to undo an earlier order that dismissed Jane Roe and Jane Roe 1 from the case and barred him from filing new civil actions in that court without permission. The court treated his filing as a request for relief from an order and considered it only on his behalf.
The court rejected John Roe’s claims that he lacked notice or a chance to respond, and found no sufficient reason to undo the filing bar or the earlier dismissal. It also rejected his claims that the Clerk’s Office mishandled his filings. The court denied his other requests, including treating the filing as a notice of appeal.
Judge Swain denied the requested relief and ended all other matters in the case. The Clerk was told not to accept further filings under the case number except papers directed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and John Roe was denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Roe v. Data Advantage Group, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-01397
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 29, 2022
Background
John Roe filed this action without a lawyer on behalf of himself, Jane Roe, and Jane Roe 1. On May 7, 2021, the court dismissed Jane Roe and Jane Roe 1 from the action without prejudice, meaning they could potentially bring their claims again. The court also directed John Roe to explain why it should not require him to obtain permission before filing future civil actions in that court.
John Roe did not provide the required explanation. The court later entered a September 20, 2021 order barring him from filing future civil actions in that court without first obtaining permission. An earlier appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit effective August 11, 2021.
Motion
The court received a filing asking for several forms of relief, including cancellation of the filing bar, permission to file appeal notices late, and other corrections and emergency orders. Because Jane Roe and Jane Roe 1 had already been dismissed from the action, the court considered the filing only on behalf of John Roe.
The court interpreted the filing as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule allows a party to seek relief from an order or judgment for specified reasons, such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or extraordinary circumstances.
Court’s Analysis
John Roe argued that the court had denied him notice and an opportunity to respond before issuing the filing bar. The court disagreed. It found that the May 7 order gave him notice and thirty days to explain why the bar should not be imposed. Instead of responding, he filed a notice of appeal, and the court did not issue the filing bar until September 20, 2021.
The court also found that John Roe had not shown facts supporting any of the first five grounds listed in Rule 60(b), or extraordinary circumstances supporting relief under the rule’s sixth provision. It further found no credible facts showing that the Clerk’s Office mishandled his filings, including a purported October 2021 notice of appeal.
Disposition
The court denied the motion for reconsideration and denied John Roe’s other requested relief, including his request to treat the filing as a notice of appeal. The court stated that the filing did not present legal or factual matters calling into question the earlier dismissal or filing bar.
The court declared the matter closed and directed the Clerk not to accept further submissions under the case number except papers directed to the Second Circuit. It also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.