Smith v. Commonwealth of Virginia
- Loretta Preska
- 1:13-cv-08111
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Smith v. Commonwealth, Judge Preska denied Smith’s request to reconsider his filing bar and closed the action.
Wesley Edward Smith remains subject to the filing restriction the court declined to reconsider, and he was denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to limit filings in this action to documents directed to the Second Circuit.
What happened
In Smith v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Wesley Edward Smith, who was representing himself, asked the court to reconsider a 2014 order barring him from filing cases without paying fees unless he first obtained permission. The court had previously dismissed his complaint as frivolous, and Smith did not respond to the order asking why the filing restriction should not be imposed.
The court treated Smith’s 2022 submission as a request for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). It found that Smith had not shown any of the listed reasons for changing the 2014 order, including mistake, new evidence, misconduct, or other specified grounds. It also found no extraordinary circumstances supporting relief under the rule’s general provision.
Judge Loretta A. Preska denied the motion for reconsideration and closed the action. The clerk was instructed to accept only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the court denied Smith permission to proceed without paying fees on any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Commonwealth of Virginia · No. 1:13-cv-08111
- Loretta Preska
- Oct. 3, 2022
Background
Wesley Edward Smith filed this action without a lawyer. On January 7, 2014, the court dismissed his complaint as frivolous and directed him to explain why he should not be barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 from filing actions without paying filing fees unless he first obtained court permission. Smith did not respond, and the court issued the bar order on February 27, 2014.
On September 28, 2022, Smith filed a document seeking permission to file materials involving various governmental bodies and officials. The court interpreted that submission as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) seeking reconsideration of the 2014 bar order.
Rule 60(b) analysis
Rule 60(b) permits a party to seek relief from an order or judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. Motions based on the first three grounds must be filed within one year.
The court concluded that, even under a generous reading of Smith’s submission, he had not shown that any of the first five grounds applied. The court therefore denied relief under those provisions. It also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which is a general provision requiring a reason distinct from the first five grounds, filing within a reasonable time, and extraordinary circumstances. The court found that Smith had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances and stated that the submission was consistent with his pattern of frivolous litigation.
Disposition
The court denied Smith’s motion for reconsideration. It closed the action and directed the Clerk of Court to accept only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for 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 Smith permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court denied reconsideration of an earlier filing restriction without deciding the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.