Combs v. United States of America
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-07244
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Combs v. United States, Judge Swain denied Combs’s requests to change or undo the judgment dismissing her action.
Marita Talley Combs’s requests to change or undo the January 18, 2023, judgment were denied. The prior dismissal without prejudice, denial of her application to proceed without paying fees, and closure of the action remained in effect. The order also limited filings in the action and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Combs v. United States of America, Marita Talley Combs, who was representing herself and incarcerated, asked the court to change or undo its January 18, 2023, judgment. That judgment had recognized her as barred from filing federal civil actions without paying fees under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule, denied her request to proceed without paying fees, and dismissed the action without prejudice because she did not file a required declaration.
Combs appeared to argue that she did not receive the court’s earlier orders on time and challenged the reason for the dismissal. The court treated her filing as a request to amend the judgment and as a request for relief from the judgment under two federal procedural rules.
Judge Swain denied both requests. The court also kept the action closed, limited further filings in the case to documents directed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and denied fee-free status for any appeal because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Combs v. United States of America · No. 1:22-cv-07244
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 21, 2023
Background
Marita Talley Combs appeared without a lawyer and was incarcerated. The court had previously ordered her to explain, by declaration, why it should not recognize her as barred under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s “three-strikes” provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), from filing federal civil actions without paying filing fees while incarcerated. The court warned that failing to comply would result in denial of her application to proceed without paying fees and dismissal of the action without prejudice.
The court later recognized Combs as barred under Section 1915(g), denied her fee-waiver application, and dismissed the action without prejudice because she did not file the required declaration. It also entered judgment and closed the action. The opinion states that court mailings of the relevant orders and judgment were sent to Combs and were not returned, although Combs later claimed that she received the orders after the dates on which they were issued.
Combs’s motion
The court received Combs’s “motion of order by declaration.” The court liberally interpreted that filing 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 the order and judgment under Rule 60(b).
Rule 59(e)
A Rule 59(e) motion requires a showing that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court concluded that Combs had not shown that it overlooked any controlling legal authority or factual matter concerning the dismissal. The court therefore denied relief under Rule 59(e).
Rule 60(b)
Rule 60(b) allows relief from a final 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. The court concluded that Combs had not shown 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), which covers other reasons justifying relief. It concluded that Combs had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under that provision.
Disposition
The court denied Combs’s Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) motions. The action remained closed. The Clerk of Court was directed to accept in this action only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court stated that it could require Combs to show cause why she should not be barred from filing further frivolous or meritless documents in the action. It 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 fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.