Komatsu v. The City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-05406
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Komatsu v. The City of New York, Judge Swain denied Komatsu’s reconsideration motion after the court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim.
Towaki Komatsu, whose reconsideration motion was denied and whose direct communications with chambers and future filings in the closed action were restricted.
What happened
In Komatsu v. The City of New York, Towaki Komatsu asked the court to reconsider its earlier dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim. The court had entered judgment before Komatsu filed the motion.
Komatsu repeated facts and legal arguments from the amended complaint and described recent events. The court found that he had not shown that it overlooked controlling law or facts, and that the recent events did not affect the dismissal order.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion under each of the three rules Komatsu invoked. She also directed him to stop contacting chambers directly, limited future filings in the action, and denied payment-free appeal status because an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Komatsu v. The City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-05406
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 30, 2024
Background
Towaki Komatsu filed the action without a lawyer. On April 15, 2024, the court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, and the Clerk entered judgment on April 16, 2024. Komatsu then filed a motion for reconsideration.
The court treated the filing as three types of motion: a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a reconsideration motion under Local Civil Rule 6.3 of the Southern District of New York, and a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b).
Court’s analysis
For Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3, the court explained that Komatsu had to show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters already presented. The court found that Komatsu repeated facts and legal assertions from his amended complaint and presented facts about recent events that did not affect the dismissal order. It therefore denied the motion under Rule 59(e) and denied the motion under Local Civil Rule 6.3.
For Rule 60(b), the court considered whether any listed ground supported relief, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, or satisfaction or reversal of the judgment. The court found that none of the first five grounds applied and denied the motion under those provisions. It also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), finding that Komatsu had not shown extraordinary circumstances.
Additional directions and disposition
The court found that Komatsu’s telephone message to chambers was improper. It directed him to stop trying to contact chambers by telephone or any other means except by filing documents through the Pro Se Intake Unit. The court stated that the action was closed and that the Clerk would accept only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It further stated that, if Komatsu filed other documents that were frivolous or meritless, the court could require him to explain why he should not be barred from filing further documents in the action.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Komatsu’s motion for reconsideration. The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied payment-free appeal status. This order addressed whether the earlier dismissal should be reconsidered; it did not revisit the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.