Nazer v. Israel State

Background

Izzat Nazer filed this action against the State of Israel, the Israeli Mossad, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and other defendants. In an order and judgment dated June 12, 2023, the court dismissed the action. It dismissed claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, as frivolous, and because they sought monetary relief from defendants immune from that relief.

The court had treated the claims against the federal agencies as claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act. It dismissed the Administrative Procedure Act claims under sovereign immunity and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Nazer had not alleged facts showing that he challenged a final agency action. It dismissed the Federal Tort Claims Act claims under sovereign immunity, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and because some claims were barred and Nazer had not shown exhaustion of administrative remedies for the remaining claims. The court dismissed the claims against the State of Israel and the Israeli Mossad under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and because they sought monetary relief from immune defendants. The court also dismissed all claims as frivolous and denied Nazer’s request for the court to seek volunteer counsel as moot.

Motion challenging the dismissal

Nazer later filed a document titled “Motion response to reconsider Order of dismissal.” The court treated it as three types of requests: reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, alteration or amendment of the judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b). The court stated that it was reading the filing liberally because Nazer was representing himself.

Court’s analysis

For reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 or Rule 59(e), Nazer had to show that the court had overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court concluded that he had not made that showing. Even to the extent Nazer argued that he had exhausted administrative remedies for at least one Federal Tort Claims Act claim, the court held that he had not shown that it overlooked law or facts supporting its determination that all of his claims were frivolous. The court therefore denied relief under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3.

The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(1) through (5), finding that Nazer had not shown that any of those grounds applied. Those grounds include mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, and certain circumstances in which a judgment has been satisfied, discharged, reversed, or is no longer equitable to apply. The court denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6) as well, concluding that Nazer had not shown extraordinary circumstances warranting relief.

Disposition

The court denied Nazer’s motions for reconsideration, to alter or amend the judgment, and for relief from the judgment. The action remains 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. If Nazer files other frivolous or meritless documents, the court stated that it may require him to explain why he should not be barred from filing further documents in the action. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status.