Jones v. Walker
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-00993
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Jones v. Walker, Judge Swain denied Jones’s reconsideration request because it was untimely and lacked grounds for relief, leaving the action closed.
The order directly affected Rafael Arden Jones’s effort to obtain reconsideration of the earlier dismissal, amend the defendants, and obtain release from custody. The respondents named in the caption are Sharlisa Walker and “John” Carter, of RNDC.
What happened
In Jones v. Walker, Rafael Arden Jones asked the court to change the earlier dismissal of his petition, amend the defendants, and order his release from custody. Jones filed the request without a lawyer.
The court treated his filing as requests for reconsideration under a local court rule and under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It had previously denied the petition as barred by the Younger doctrine. The court ruled that Jones filed too late for Rules 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3, and that he did not show a valid reason for relief under Rule 60(b).
Judge Swain denied the motion for reconsideration, closed the action, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The court also stated that future frivolous or meritless filings could lead to an order requiring Jones to explain why he should not be barred from filing further documents in the action.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Walker · No. 1:22-cv-00993
- Laura Swain
- Nov. 17, 2022
Background
Rafael Arden Jones filed this action without a lawyer. On March 3, 2022, the court denied his petition as barred by the Younger doctrine. On November 14, 2022, Jones submitted a letter asking for permission to amend the defendants and filed a motion seeking an order releasing him from custody. The court treated these submissions as a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), and a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b).
Rule 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3
A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed within 28 days after entry of judgment and must identify controlling law or factual matters that the court overlooked. A motion under Local Civil Rule 6.3 must be filed within 14 days after the relevant order or judgment and must meet the same substantive standard. The court found that Jones filed his motion after both deadlines. It therefore denied the motion under Rule 59(e) and denied it under Local Civil Rule 6.3.
Rule 60(b)
Rule 60(b) permits relief from a judgment or order for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, or satisfaction of the judgment. The court found that Jones had not shown that any of the first five grounds applied. It also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which requires a reason outside the first five grounds, filing within a reasonable time, and extraordinary circumstances. The court found that Jones had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances.
Disposition
The court denied Jones’s motion for reconsideration, including the requests identified in ECF Nos. 6 and 7, and closed the action. The Clerk of Court was directed to accept only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court warned that future frivolous or meritless filings could result in an order requiring Jones to show why he should not be barred from filing further documents in this action. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that an appeal 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.