Green v. Kelly and Ryan Show

Background

The court previously ordered COURNTEY GREEN, who was representing herself, to resubmit the signature page of her complaint with an original signature within 30 days. The court warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. Green filed a signed request to proceed without paying filing fees and several letters, but she did not resubmit the signature page within the required period. On March 14, 2022, the court dismissed the action without prejudice because she had not complied with the January 12 order.

Green then filed an unsigned motion to reconsider, asserting that she had mailed a paper complaint with an original signature on December 24, 2021. She later filed additional unsigned letters and requested that the court issue a summons. On March 28, 2022, the court treated that earlier motion as a request to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and as a request for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, and denied both the motion and the summons request.

Latest motions and jurisdiction

Green filed two more unsigned motions to reconsider on April 1 and April 2, 2022. She repeated that she had mailed an originally signed filing and added that a snowstorm, travel with her grandfather, and lack of access to documents or communication had interfered with her ability to submit materials. She filed a notice of appeal on April 5, 2022.

Because a notice of appeal generally transfers control over the appealed matters to the appeals court, the district court first considered whether it still had authority to decide the latest motions. The court concluded that it did. Rule 59(e) permits a motion to alter or amend a judgment within 28 days after entry, and a timely motion filed before the district court rules on it delays the effectiveness of the notice of appeal. The court found that Green’s April 1 and April 2 motions were filed before the April 12 deadline and therefore could be considered.

Standard for reconsideration

Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3 apply the same standard. A person seeking reconsideration must show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. These motions are narrowly applied and are not meant to repeat arguments already considered, introduce new theories, or submit new evidence in response to the ruling.

Ruling

The court denied Green’s latest motions. It found that she had not shown that the court overlooked any controlling legal decision or factual matter concerning the dismissal. The court stated that it never received the signed signature page Green claimed she submitted within the time allowed. It also stated that the signature pages attached to her reconsideration motions were not legible. The court therefore denied relief under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to accept no further submissions from Green under this docket number, except papers directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.