Komatsu v. The City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-05406
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Komatsu v. The City of New York, Judge Swain denied reconsideration because Komatsu showed no overlooked law or facts.
The order directly affects Towaki Komatsu’s request to revisit the denial of recusal and preliminary injunctive relief. It also denies him permission to pursue an appeal from this order without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Komatsu v. The City of New York, Towaki Komatsu, who was representing himself, asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of his requests to remove the judge from the case and to issue preliminary relief. He filed that request after notifying the court that he was appealing the earlier order.
The court treated Komatsu’s filings as a request to change or amend the earlier order under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It said it could consider the request because Komatsu filed it within 28 days of the earlier order, but explained that reconsideration requires showing that the court overlooked important law or facts already presented.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the reconsideration motion. She found that Komatsu mainly repeated earlier allegations and arguments, and that his new information and reference to a different case did not show that the court had overlooked controlling law or facts. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Komatsu v. The City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-05406
- Laura Swain
- July 31, 2023
Background
Towaki Komatsu filed the action without a lawyer. On July 20, 2023, the court denied his requests for recusal of Judge Swain and for preliminary injunctive relief. Komatsu then filed a notice of interlocutory appeal and submitted a letter motion asking for reconsideration and clarification under Rules 60 and 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. He also filed several additional letters.
Applicable procedure
The court construed Komatsu’s submissions as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e). The court declined to treat the motion as one under Rule 60 because Rule 60 applies only to a final judgment, order, or proceeding, while an order granting or denying preliminary injunctive relief is interlocutory rather than final.
Although filing a notice of appeal generally transfers control over the appealed matters to the court of appeals, the appellate rules allow a district court to decide a timely Rule 59 motion. Because Komatsu’s motion was received within 28 days after the July 20 order, the court concluded that it had authority to consider it.
Court’s analysis
A Rule 59(e) motion requires the movant to show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters that had already been presented. The court stated that such motions are narrowly applied and cannot be used simply to repeat arguments, raise new theories, or present new evidence in response to the court’s ruling.
The court found that Komatsu largely repeated factual allegations, legal arguments, and unsupported accusations from his amended complaint and earlier motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The court also considered his references to a 2017 incident involving an alleged assault by a court security officer, his own 2018 interaction with that officer, and a July 18, 2023, preliminary-injunction order in a different case. It concluded that these matters did not show that the court had overlooked controlling law or facts requiring reconsideration.
Disposition
Judge Swain denied Komatsu’s motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e). The court 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 paying filing fees. The opinion does not identify the defendants beyond the City of New York and “et al.” in the caption.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.