Green v. FOX Corporation
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-00243
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Green v. FOX Corporation: Judge Swain denied Green’s motions asking the court to reconsider its earlier dismissal as frivolous.
Courtney Green’s lawsuit and her requests to reconsider its dismissal were affected; the court also denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.
What happened
In Green v. FOX Corporation, Courtney Green, who represented herself, asked the court to reconsider its earlier dismissal of her lawsuit as frivolous. She alleged that Fox Corporation used television shows to surveil and harass her at home and collect her personal information.
Green argued that she had provided facts about internet stalking, hacking, and monitoring, and that the court had a duty to investigate before calling her claims frivolous. The court treated her filings as requests to change or reconsider the judgment and, alternatively, as requests for relief from the judgment.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motions, finding that Green had not shown that the court overlooked controlling law or facts or that any other basis for relief applied. The court terminated the remaining matters, denied other requests as moot, and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Green v. FOX Corporation · No. 1:22-cv-00243
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 6, 2022
Background
Courtney Green, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Fox Corporation under the court’s diversity jurisdiction. She alleged that multiple television shows were used to surveil and harass her in her home and to collect her personal information. On April 4, 2022, the court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Green then filed two unsigned motions seeking reconsideration of that dismissal. The court treated the filings as motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment; Local Civil Rule 6.3, which governs reconsideration in the Southern District of New York; and, alternatively, Rule 60(b), which allows relief from a judgment or order for specified reasons or extraordinary circumstances.
Court’s reasoning
For Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3, the court explained that Green had to show that it had overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court said reconsideration motions are narrowly applied and cannot be used simply to repeat arguments or introduce new theories or evidence after an unfavorable ruling.
The court concluded that Green had not shown that it overlooked any controlling law or facts. It relied on its earlier finding that the complaint’s allegations were largely irrational or wholly incredible, lacked facts suggesting the alleged television surveillance was possible, and were therefore not plausible. The court also found that Green had not shown any applicable ground for relief under the first five provisions of Rule 60(b), or extraordinary circumstances under Rule 60(b)(6).
Disposition
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Green’s motions for reconsideration, identified as ECF Nos. 22 and 23. The court terminated all other pending matters and denied all other requests as moot. It directed the Clerk of Court not to accept further submissions under the closed case number except papers directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court denied requests to reconsider an earlier dismissal rather than deciding a new underlying legal claim on its merits.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.