Bartlett v. Tribeca Lending Corp & Franklin Mortgage Asset Trust 2009-A
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-05761
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Bartlett v. Tribeca Lending Corp: Judge Swain denied permission and IFP status, then dismissed the action without prejudice under an earlier filing bar.
The order directly affected Gregory Miles Bartlett by blocking this filing, denying his request to proceed without paying fees, and dismissing the action without prejudice. It also warned him that further similar filings could result in sanctions.
What happened
In Bartlett v. Tribeca Lending Corp, Gregory Miles Bartlett asked to file a new case challenging a 2008 state-court judgment from his foreclosure action and asked to proceed without paying filing fees. An earlier order required him to obtain permission before filing related cases.
The court denied permission because Bartlett did not show that this case differed from his earlier history of similar filings. It also rejected his attempt to describe the case as an independent request for relief from a judgment, denied his request to proceed without paying fees, and dismissed the action without prejudice under the earlier filing bar.
Judge Swain warned that more duplicative or nonmeritorious filings could lead to additional sanctions, including monetary penalties. The court also stated that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Bartlett permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal.
The detailed version
- Bartlett v. Tribeca Lending Corp & Franklin Mortgage Asset Trust 2009-A · No. 1:22-cv-05761
- Laura Swain
- July 14, 2022
Background
An earlier January 29, 2016 order barred Bartlett from filing another civil action in the Southern District of New York concerning his 2007 state-court foreclosure action unless he first obtained permission from the court. In this case, Bartlett proceeded without a lawyer and asked for permission to file, requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees, and sought recognition that a September 10, 2008 judgment in the state-court foreclosure action was void.
Court’s analysis
The court denied Bartlett’s request for permission to file because he failed to show that the new action was a departure from his history of bringing vexatious and nonmeritorious litigation in the court concerning the foreclosure action. The court said that labeling the filing an independent action for relief from a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(1) did not change the fact that Bartlett was again asking the federal court to overturn a state-court judgment.
The court also explained that Rule 60(d)(1) did not give the federal court authority to review another court’s decisions. It stated that the rule permits an independent action for relief from a judgment but does not give one court authority to review another court’s judgments. The court further referenced the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which generally bars federal district courts from hearing cases that effectively appeal state-court judgments.
Disposition
The court denied Bartlett’s request to file the action, denied his application to proceed without paying filing fees, and dismissed the action without prejudice under the January 29, 2016 filing bar. The court warned that continued duplicative, vexatious, frivolous, or otherwise nonmeritorious litigation could result in additional sanctions, including monetary penalties. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.