Pickering-George v. Carter
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-10567
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Pickering-George v. Carter, Judge Swain denied reconsideration and denied fee-free appeal status.
John Pickering-George's request to reconsider the dismissal was denied, and he was denied permission to appeal without prepaying the filing fee. The order does not alter the named defendants' status.
What happened
In Pickering-George v. Carter, John Pickering-George asked the court to reconsider its earlier dismissal of his action. The earlier dismissal was without prejudice after the court denied him permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court treated his filing as requests to change the judgment under Rule 59(e) and to obtain relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b). It found that he had not shown overlooked law or facts, any applicable Rule 60(b) ground, or extraordinary circumstances.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion for reconsideration. She also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying the filing fee.
The detailed version
- Pickering-George v. Carter · No. 1:22-cv-10567
- Laura Swain
- July 21, 2023
Background
John Pickering-George filed the action without a lawyer and sought permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. On December 16, 2022, the Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because it had previously barred him from filing a new action without prepaying the filing fee unless he first obtained the Court's permission. The Court denied that permission after concluding that the new complaint was not a departure from his pattern of frivolous litigation.
On January 12, 2023, Pickering-George filed a submission objecting to the dismissal. The Court treated it as both 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) ruling
A Rule 59(e) motion requires a showing that the Court overlooked controlling law or factual matters that had already been presented. The Court found that Pickering-George had not made that showing and denied the motion under Rule 59(e).
Rule 60(b) ruling
Rule 60(b) permits relief from a judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, opposing-party misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. The Court found that, even under a liberal interpretation of Pickering-George's filing, he had not shown that any of the first five grounds applied. It therefore denied relief under those provisions.
The Court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which applies only for reasons outside the first five categories and requires extraordinary circumstances. The Court found that Pickering-George had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting relief.
Disposition
The Court denied Pickering-George's motion for reconsideration. 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 permission to appeal without prepaying the filing fee.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.