LoRusso v. Fox Corporation Broadcasting
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-08686
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
LoRusso v. Fox Corporation Broadcasting: Judge Swain denied reconsideration after dismissing the action under the prisoner-litigation law’s three-strikes rule.
Michael Anthony LoRusso’s action remains closed, and his request to reconsider the earlier dismissal was denied. The order also denies permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In LoRusso v. Fox Corporation Broadcasting, Michael Anthony LoRusso, representing himself, asked the court to reconsider its dismissal of his action under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule.
The court treated his filing as requests to change the judgment, reconsider the decision, and provide relief from the order. It denied each request because LoRusso did not show that the court had overlooked controlling law or facts, or that any other recognized basis for relief applied.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion for reconsideration, closed the action, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees because the court determined that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- LoRusso v. Fox Corporation Broadcasting · No. 1:22-cv-08686
- Laura Swain
- Nov. 10, 2022
Background
Michael Anthony LoRusso filed the action without a lawyer. In an order dated October 14, 2022, and entered October 17, 2022, the court dismissed the complaint under the “three strikes” rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The opinion does not describe the complaint’s underlying allegations.
The court received LoRusso’s “Motion for Rehearing” on November 7, 2022. It interpreted the filing as requesting relief under three authorities: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment; Local Civil Rule 6.3, which governs reconsideration in that court; and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows relief from a judgment or order in specified circumstances.
Court’s Analysis
Under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3, the court explained that LoRusso had to show that it had overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court found that his motion essentially repeated the allegations in his complaint and did not identify overlooked law or facts. It therefore denied the motion under both Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3.
Under Rule 60(b), the court considered whether LoRusso had shown mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct by an opposing party, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. The court found that he had not shown that any of the first five grounds applied. It also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), finding that he had not demonstrated the extraordinary circumstances required for that provision.
Ruling and Effect
The court denied LoRusso’s motion for reconsideration. The action is closed. The clerk will accept only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court stated that if LoRusso files additional frivolous or meritless documents, it may require him to explain why he should not be barred from filing further documents in this action.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The opinion does not state whether LoRusso pursued an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.