Gibson v. Various members from the Office of Mental Health

Background

Bennie Gibson filed this action without a lawyer. On May 4, 2023, the court dismissed his complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s “three-strikes” rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The dismissal order and judgment were entered on May 5, 2023.

Gibson later submitted a letter stating that he had not submitted a request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but had submitted only a request for permission to file. Because Gibson did not pay the $402 filing fee when he filed the complaint, the court treated the action as one seeking permission to proceed without prepaying fees.

The court concluded that Gibson was barred from proceeding without prepaying fees under both the three-strikes rule and a separate filing restriction under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. The court had previously determined that Gibson could file a new civil action by paying the required fees, although any complaint filed while he was a prisoner would still be screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Gibson’s Motions

The court liberally construed Gibson’s letter as three requests: 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 the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

For Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3, Gibson needed to show that the court had overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court found that he had not made that showing. It therefore denied Gibson’s motion under Rule 59(e) and denied his motion under Local Civil Rule 6.3.

For Rule 60(b), Gibson needed to show a recognized basis for relief, such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. The court found that none of the first five grounds applied. It also found that Gibson had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). The court denied the motion under Rule 60(b), including the request under Rule 60(b)(6).

Ruling

The court concluded that Gibson’s argument about seeking permission to file did not justify changing the dismissal because the court had already considered and rejected that request. The court denied Gibson’s motion for reconsideration, closed the action, and directed the Clerk of Court to accept only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court also stated that it could require Gibson to explain why he should not be barred from filing further frivolous or meritless documents in the action.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Gibson permission to appeal without prepaying fees.