Rosenberg v. United States
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-06174
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Rosenberg v. United States, Judge Swain denied Rudi Rosenberg’s motion to reconsider dismissal of his action and closed the case.
Rudi Rosenberg’s attempt to reopen or reconsider the dismissal of his action was unsuccessful; the case remains closed, and he was denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.
What happened
In Rosenberg v. United States, the court had previously dismissed Rudi Rosenberg’s action without prejudice because he had not obtained permission required by a bar order issued in an earlier related proceeding. Rosenberg then filed a motion challenging that dismissal and the validity of the bar order.
The court treated Rosenberg’s filing as requests to change the judgment, reconsider it, and obtain relief from it under three court rules. Rosenberg argued that he had not received proper notice or an opportunity to respond in the earlier related proceeding and repeated complaints about how his filings had been handled. The court said he had not shown that it overlooked controlling law or facts, and he had not shown any valid reason for relief under the applicable rules.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion under each of the three rules and terminated all other pending matters. The action was closed, further filings under the case number were barred except papers directed to the appeals court, and the court denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal.
The detailed version
- Rosenberg v. United States · No. 1:22-cv-06174
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 30, 2022
Background
Rudi Rosenberg filed this action without a lawyer. On July 27, 2022, the court dismissed the action without prejudice because Rosenberg had not requested permission to file it, as required by a bar order issued in an earlier related proceeding, No. 21-CV-1397.
On August 25, 2022, Rosenberg filed a submission titled “EMERGENT ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE – 22-CV-6174 (LTS) CLARIFICATION, CORRECTION & VACATUR OF PRIOR & NEW SANCTIONS ET SEQ PURSUANT TO FRCP R. 59(e) & 60(b), FRAP 10 ET SEQ. NOTICE OF APPEAL.” The court liberally construed the submission as three requests: a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, and a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
Arguments and Analysis
Rosenberg did not directly challenge the stated reason for dismissing this action—his failure to comply with the bar order. Instead, he challenged the validity of that bar order. He argued that he had been deprived of notice and an opportunity to respond to an order to show cause in the earlier related proceeding and repeated grievances about how his filings had been treated there and by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
For a Rule 59(e) motion, the court explained that the movant must show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court said Rosenberg had not made that showing. It also denied reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 because the standards are the same and Rosenberg had not identified overlooked law or facts concerning the dismissal. The court stated that it had already considered and rejected his challenges concerning the bar order and would not reconsider them in this action.
Rule 60(b) permits relief from a judgment or order for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, opposing-party misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, or other extraordinary circumstances. The court found that, even under a liberal reading of Rosenberg’s filing, he had not alleged facts showing that any of the first five grounds applied or that extraordinary circumstances justified relief under the sixth ground. Because he presented no legal or factual matter calling the dismissal into question, the court denied relief under Rule 60(b) as well.
Disposition
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Rosenberg’s submission, as construed as a motion for reconsideration. The court terminated all other pending matters and closed the action. It directed the Clerk of Court not to accept further submissions under the closed case number except papers directed to the Second Circuit. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.