Zeng v. Chell
- John Koeltl
- 1:19-cv-03218
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Zeng v. Chell, Judge Koeltl forwarded Zeng’s reconsideration correspondence to defense counsel without ruling on the motion.
Xiamin Zeng and the defendants’ counsel; the order only forwarded Zeng’s correspondence and did not decide the reconsideration motion.
What happened
In Zeng v. Chell, Xiamin Zeng submitted a written rebuttal to the defendants’ responses to her motion asking the court to reconsider an earlier decision. The filing states that Zeng was representing herself and challenged the dismissal of federal claims, including claims involving excessive force and deliberate indifference.
Zeng argued that exceptional circumstances justified reconsideration, including alleged unauthorized actions by her former law firm. The defendants’ arguments, as described in the filing, included that Zeng was bound by her attorney’s actions, had not documented injuries, and had not supported her claims adequately.
Judge John G. Koeltl did not decide the reconsideration motion in this order. He stated only that the court had received the attached correspondence and was forwarding it to defense counsel.
The detailed version
- Zeng v. Chell · No. 1:19-cv-03218
- John Koeltl
- Mar. 28, 2024
What the order did
The court stated: “The Court received the attached correspondence, which it forwards to counsel for the defendants.” The order then provided that it was so ordered. It did not grant or deny the motion for reconsideration, resolve any claim, or otherwise rule on the merits.
The attached correspondence
Xiamin Zeng’s filing is titled a rebuttal to the defendants’ responses to her motion for reconsideration. The filing says Zeng was representing herself. It describes the defendants as arguing that she was bound by her former attorney’s actions, had failed to document injuries supporting an excessive-force claim, and had not established deliberate indifference because the alleged denial of necessities lasted less than three hours. The filing also says the defendants asked the court to deny the reconsideration motion.
Zeng argued that exceptional circumstances warranted reconsideration, including alleged unauthorized actions by her former law firm that, according to her filing, led to the dismissal of federal claims without her consent. She also argued that the court should reconsider issues involving excessive force, assault, injuries, and deliberate indifference to conditions of confinement. The correspondence itself cautions that some cited case names, case numbers, and details might require verification.
Disposition
Judge John G. Koeltl’s March 28, 2024 order only forwarded the correspondence to defense counsel. Because the opinion text does not state a disposition of the reconsideration motion, the motion’s status is not determined by this order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.