Baker v. Department of Veterans Affairs Compensation and Pension
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-01067
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Baker v. Department of Veterans Affairs Compensation and Pension: Judge Swain denied Baker’s motion to reopen the closed action under Rule 60(b).
Melody Joy Baker’s closed action and any attempted appeal from this order; the court denied her Rule 60(b) motion and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
Melody Joy Baker, who was representing herself, asked the court to reopen her case after it had dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on May 4, 2023. The court treated her filing as a request for relief from that final order or judgment under Rule 60(b).\n\nThe court considered the reasons Baker gave but found that she had not shown any basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1) through (5), such as mistake, new evidence, fraud, or a void judgment. It also found that she had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6).\n\nJudge Swain denied the motion under all parts of Rule 60(b). The action remains closed, the Clerk may accept only filings directed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the court denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Baker v. Department of Veterans Affairs Compensation and Pension · No. 1:23-cv-01067
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 19, 2023
Background
By an order and judgment entered on May 4, 2023, the Court dismissed Melody Joy Baker’s action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Baker was proceeding without a lawyer. On August 8, 2023, she filed a declaration called a “motion to reopen.” The Court interpreted that filing as a motion for relief from a final order or judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 60(b) analysis
Rule 60(b) permits relief from a final order or judgment for specified reasons, including mistake or excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct by an opposing party, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, and other reasons justifying relief.
The Court concluded that Baker had not shown that any of the grounds in Rule 60(b)(1) through (5) applied. For Rule 60(b)(6), which covers other reasons justifying relief, the Court explained that a party must show both that the motion was filed within a reasonable time and that extraordinary circumstances warrant relief. The Court found that Baker had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances.
Disposition
The Court denied Baker’s motion under Rule 60(b), including the requested relief under Rule 60(b)(1) through (6). The action is closed. The Court directed the Clerk of Court to accept in this action only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Court also certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.