Pickering v. Gazivoda Management LLC

Background

John Pickering-George filed this action without a lawyer and styled it as a criminal complaint against a landlord and others associated with a rental property. The opinion states that he was barred from filing any new action without paying the filing fee unless he first obtained the court’s permission. He asked for permission to file this action and to proceed without paying that fee.

On January 4, 2023, the court held that he had not shown good cause for permission, denied his request to proceed without paying the filing fee, and dismissed the action. On January 26, 2023, he filed four submissions challenging that order and seeking permission to continue: a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice, a motion to amend and supplement his pleadings, and a motion objecting to the earlier order and requesting permission to file.

Court’s analysis

The court treated the submissions together as requests under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment, Local Civil Rule 6.3 for reconsideration, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for relief from the judgment or order.

For Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3, the court explained that Pickering-George had to show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court found that his submissions suffered from the same problems as his complaint: they did not allege facts showing that he could state a viable claim within the court’s jurisdiction, and they presented legal issues in a disjointed way that made the grounds for relief difficult to understand. The court also considered his pattern of vexatious and frivolous litigation.

For Rule 60(b), the court found that Pickering-George had not alleged facts showing that any of the listed grounds applied, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, or satisfaction or reversal of the judgment. The court also found no extraordinary circumstances justifying relief under the rule’s catchall provision.

Disposition

The court denied the motion under Rule 59(e), denied the motion under Local Civil Rule 6.3, and denied the requests for relief under Rule 60(b). It also declined to grant permission to proceed without paying the filing fee and denied the other relief sought. The action remained closed, and the restriction requiring Pickering-George to obtain permission before filing a new action without paying the filing fee remained in effect. The court directed the clerk not to accept further submissions under this case number except papers directed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.