Muzumala v. Unknown Federal Agents

Background

Joshua Muzumala, appearing without a lawyer, brought claims under Bivens and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986. He alleged that a Doe couple, federal agents, and their proxies conducted a campaign of harassment against him to cause his deportation, and later tracked and monitored him with x-ray equipment during travel between New Paltz, New Orleans, and New York.

On August 28, 2023, the court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and entered judgment. Muzumala later filed a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, along with a memorandum, seven declarations, and a letter. He argued that the court had overlooked important facts and that new information supported his claim that directed-energy systems had been used to cause him pain and drive him out of the country. He referred to reports concerning “Havana Syndrome” and the Department of Defense’s Active Denial System.

Analysis

The court denied the motion under Local Civil Rule 6.3 because it was untimely. The rule required the motion to be filed within 14 days after the relevant order or judgment. The court had granted Muzumala two 30-day extensions, but he did not file until January 14, 2024, after the extended filing period had ended.

Because Muzumala was proceeding without a lawyer, the court also interpreted his submissions as seeking relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule permits relief for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of an earlier judgment, or other extraordinary circumstances. The court found that Muzumala had not shown that any of the first five grounds applied or that extraordinary circumstances justified relief under the sixth ground.

The court further concluded that Muzumala’s references to “Havana Syndrome” and directed-energy devices did not overcome its earlier conclusion that his allegations about a broad conspiracy were conclusory, based on suspicions, implausible, and frivolous. It therefore denied the motion for reconsideration.

Disposition

The court denied Muzumala’s motion for reconsideration. It terminated all other pending matters and denied all other requests as moot. The action was closed, and the Clerk of Court was directed to accept only filings addressed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.