Cohen v. Jamison
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-01304
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
Cohen v. Jamison: Judge Swain denied Cohen’s reconsideration motions, leaving his moot prison-conditions petition dismissed.
The order directly affected Jeffrey Cohen’s request to reopen the closed action and left the dismissal of his petition in place. Warden J.L. Jamison remained the respondent, and the court stated that Cohen could bring any new claims about FCI Otisville in a new action.
What happened
In Cohen v. Jamison, Jeffrey Cohen asked the court to reconsider its dismissal of his petition challenging alleged interference with his legal mail at FCI Gilmer. The court had dismissed the petition as moot because Cohen was no longer held there.
The court denied the request under each rule it considered. It found that Cohen’s claims about mail at FCI Otisville were new claims based on different facts, and that his request under the local reconsideration rule was filed too late. It also found no basis for relief under the federal rule allowing judgments to be reopened.
Judge Swain denied the motion for reconsideration and closed the action. The court said Cohen may bring claims about events at FCI Otisville in a new case, and denied fee-free appeal status because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Cohen v. Jamison · No. 1:23-cv-01304
- Laura Swain
- May 12, 2023
Background
Jeffrey Cohen filed the action without a lawyer under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal law allowing a person in custody to challenge certain aspects of that custody. He alleged that mail-room staff at FCI Gilmer hindered his legal mail and thereby interfered with his effort to seek rehearing of the Sixth Circuit’s denial of his motion to vacate his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He sought immediate release.
On April 10, 2023, the court dismissed the petition as moot because Cohen was no longer incarcerated at FCI Gilmer. A case is moot when the court can no longer provide effective relief concerning the challenged conduct. Judgment was entered on April 12, 2023. Cohen then filed a May 1 request for reconsideration.
Rulings on Reconsideration
The court treated Cohen’s filing as three types of motions: a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, and a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
Rule 59(e). The court denied the motion. It rejected Cohen’s argument that the exception for disputes capable of repeating but ending before review applied. The original petition concerned alleged mail tampering and delays at FCI Gilmer, not a nationwide Bureau of Prisons policy. After Cohen’s transfer, he no longer faced the conditions that allegedly interfered with his litigation of the § 2255 motion. The court also found that Cohen’s allegations about officials at FCI Otisville opening his legal mail involved a new setting and different facts. Because he did not allege that the Otisville mail was delayed or that it hindered his § 2255 litigation, the court treated those allegations as new claims that could not be raised through reconsideration of the earlier ruling.
Local Civil Rule 6.3. The court denied this motion as untimely. The rule required filing within 14 days after entry of the judgment. Judgment was entered on April 12, 2023, and Cohen did not place his motion in the prison mailing system until May 1, 2023.
Rule 60(b). The court denied relief under the first five grounds of the rule because Cohen had not shown that any applied. Those grounds cover matters such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, or satisfaction or reversal of the judgment. The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which permits relief for another reason warranting it, because Cohen had not shown extraordinary circumstances.
Disposition
The court denied Cohen’s motion for reconsideration, left in place its earlier conclusion that the petition was moot, and closed the action. It declined to address Cohen’s challenge to a footnote concerning the type of relief available in a petition challenging prison conditions. The court stated that Cohen could bring claims about alleged mail opening at FCI Otisville in a new petition or civil action. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.