Ahmed v. Schumer

Background

Jamoda Fuller Ahmed, who represented herself, sued Senator Chuck Schumer in his capacity as Majority Leader of the United States Senate. On July 27, 2023, the court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court had found that Ahmed did not provide enough factual detail to plausibly show that Schumer or another federal officer violated her federally protected rights. It also found that Schumer was protected from liability for actions taken in his official capacity as a senator by sovereign immunity and legislative immunity.

The court had warned Ahmed that additional vexatious or frivolous litigation could lead to an order requiring her to obtain permission before filing new civil actions in that court. Ahmed later submitted a notice of motion and a declaration containing allegations concerning discrimination, civil-rights violations, legislative conduct, family members’ experiences, and other matters. The court read those submissions liberally because Ahmed was representing herself.

Requests for Relief

The court treated the submissions as one motion seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which permits a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment; Local Civil Rule 6.3, which permits reconsideration; and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits relief from a judgment or order for specified reasons or, in exceptional circumstances, for another reason justifying relief.

For Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3, the court explained that Ahmed had to show that it overlooked controlling law or factual matters already presented. The court found that her filings, like her complaint, consisted of phrases, disconnected information, and case citations without supporting facts connecting them to Schumer. The court also found that she did not provide enough factual detail to plausibly show that Schumer personally and directly violated her federally protected rights. It denied relief under both Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3.

For Rule 60(b), the court found that Ahmed had not shown that any of the first five specified grounds applied, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, or satisfaction or reversal of the judgment. It also found no extraordinary circumstances supporting relief under Rule 60(b)(6). The court therefore denied relief under Rule 60(b).

Disposition

The court denied the motion and terminated all other pending matters. It stated that the matter was closed and directed the clerk not to accept further submissions under the closed case number, except papers directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court again warned that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could result in a requirement that Ahmed obtain prior court permission before filing new civil actions without paying filing fees. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.