Komatsu v. Urban Pathways, Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-09080
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Komatsu v. Urban Pathways, Judge Swain denied reconsideration of the dismissal, leaving the action closed.
Towaki Komatsu, whose requests to reconsider the dismissal were denied; Urban Pathways, Inc. and the other defendants remain parties to the closed action.
What happened
In Komatsu v. Urban Pathways, Inc., the court had previously dismissed the complaint for failing to state a claim. Towaki Komatsu, who filed the action without a lawyer, challenged that dismissal in two letters.
The court treated the letters as requests under Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It denied both requests because Komatsu had not shown that the court overlooked controlling law or facts, a qualifying reason for relief, or extraordinary circumstances.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the letter-motions and stated that the action was closed. The court also denied fee-free appeal status and warned that further frivolous or meritless filings could lead to an order requiring Komatsu to explain why he should not be barred from filing more documents in the action.
The detailed version
- Komatsu v. Urban Pathways, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-09080
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 4, 2023
Background
Towaki Komatsu filed this action without a lawyer. On September 5, 2023, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). On September 12 and September 15, 2023, Komatsu filed letters challenging that dismissal. The court treated the letters as motions for reconsideration under Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 59(e)
A Rule 59(e) motion asks the court to alter or amend a judgment. The moving party must show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court concluded that Komatsu had not made that showing and denied the Rule 59(e) letter-motion.
Rule 60(b)
Rule 60(b) allows relief from an order or judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct by an opposing party, a void judgment, or other qualifying circumstances. The court concluded that Komatsu had not shown that any of the first five listed grounds applied and denied the letter-motion under those grounds.
The court also considered Rule 60(b)(6), which permits relief for another reason that justifies it but requires a reason different from those covered by the first five grounds. The court concluded that Komatsu had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6), and denied the motion on that basis as well.
Disposition
The court denied Komatsu’s letter-motions seeking reconsideration of the September 5, 2023 dismissal order. The action is closed. The Clerk of Court will accept only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court stated that, if Komatsu files other documents that are frivolous or meritless, it may require him to show why he should not be barred from filing further documents in this action.
The court certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. The opinion does not alter the earlier dismissal or decide the underlying claims anew.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.