Baker v. Obama
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-03125
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Baker v. Obama, Judge Swain denied Baker’s motions for default judgment and to reopen the closed action.
Eric T. Baker’s post-judgment motions were denied, and the action remains closed. The order also denies permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Eric T. Baker v. Barack Hussein Obama, et al., the court had previously dismissed Baker’s action as frivolous. Baker, who represented himself, later asked for default judgment and to reopen the case.
The court denied the default-judgment motion because the action was already closed. It treated the motion to reopen as requests to change the judgment or obtain relief from it, but denied those requests because the filing missed the deadline for one type of request and did not meet the requirements for the other.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain kept the action closed and denied both motions. She also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Baker v. Obama · No. 1:22-cv-03125
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 26, 2022
Background
The court had dismissed this action and entered judgment on July 11, 2022, describing the action as frivolous. Eric T. Baker then filed a motion seeking default judgment and a separate motion seeking to reopen the action. The court addressed those motions only as they related to this action, rather than Baker’s two other actions mentioned in the filings.
Default-judgment motion
The court denied Baker’s motion for default judgment as improper because the action had already been closed when the court dismissed it.
Motion to reopen
The court treated Baker’s motion to reopen as both a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b).
Under Rule 59(e), the motion had to be filed within 28 days after the judgment. Because the judgment was entered on July 11, 2022, the deadline was August 8, 2022. Baker filed the motion on August 10, 2022. The court therefore denied Rule 59(e) relief as untimely.
Under Rule 60(b), the court may grant relief for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct by an opposing party, a void judgment, or other listed circumstances. The court found that Baker made no argument showing that any of the first five grounds applied and denied relief under Rule 60(b)(1) through (5). The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), finding that Baker had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for that provision.
Disposition
The court denied the motion for default judgment and denied the motion to reopen, as construed under Rules 59(e) and 60(b). The action remained closed. The Clerk of Court was directed to accept only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court stated that further frivolous or meritless filings could lead to an order requiring Baker to explain why he should not be barred from filing additional documents in this action.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.