Sloan v. Langley

Background

Derek Sloan filed this action without a lawyer. The Eastern District of New York transferred the action to the Southern District of New York. On July 14, 2022, the court dismissed the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s “three strikes” rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That rule generally prevents a person who has accumulated qualifying prior dismissals from proceeding without paying the filing fee, unless the complaint alleges that the person faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.

Sloan later filed a “reply letter” asking the court to reinstate the complaint and forward it to the New York State Supreme Court in Brooklyn. The court treated the letter as seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), Local Civil Rule 6.3, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

Court’s analysis

The court rejected Sloan’s argument that the imminent-danger exception applied. Sloan relied on an allegation that Kevin Radovich pointed a gun at him while he was handcuffed in the rear seat of Brian Neary’s vehicle. The complaint stated that this incident occurred on December 15, 2020, while Sloan filed the complaint on June 22, 2022. The court held that any danger from that incident had ended before filing, so the exception did not apply.

The court also rejected Sloan’s request to transfer the case to a New York state court in Brooklyn. It stated that Sloan provided no authority requiring or permitting the federal court to transfer the case to a state court. The court noted that Putnam County is in the Southern District of New York, while Brooklyn is in the Eastern District of New York.

For reconsideration under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3, the court explained that Sloan had to show that it overlooked controlling law or facts already presented. The court found that he had not made that showing and denied the motion under both provisions.

The court separately considered Rule 60(b), which allows relief from a judgment for specified reasons such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, or other exceptional circumstances. The court found that none of the first five grounds applied. It also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), finding that Sloan had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for that provision.

Disposition

The court denied Sloan’s motion for reconsideration. The action was closed. The clerk was instructed to accept only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court warned that additional frivolous or meritless documents could result in an order requiring Sloan to explain why he should not be barred from filing further documents in the action. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.