0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
91 Ansichten4 Seiten
The Supreme court cites Lord Byron from Don Juan as proof that the court MUST address what it claims is frivolous if it says a party is frivolous.
Quick Draw , Brian Cogan, fights for all he is worth to ignore the Supreme court.
Originaltitel
Motion to Reconsider as Brian Cogan is in Contempt of Supreme Court rulings
The Supreme court cites Lord Byron from Don Juan as proof that the court MUST address what it claims is frivolous if it says a party is frivolous.
Quick Draw , Brian Cogan, fights for all he is worth to ignore the Supreme court.
The Supreme court cites Lord Byron from Don Juan as proof that the court MUST address what it claims is frivolous if it says a party is frivolous.
Quick Draw , Brian Cogan, fights for all he is worth to ignore the Supreme court.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ERIC RICHMOND,
Appellant, 5
: 16 Civ. 0422 (BMC)
-against- 16 Civ. 0424 (BMC)
P.B. #7, LLC,
Appellee
——X
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
DENIAL OF INFORMA PAUPERIS MOTION AND DISMISSAL OF APPEALS
TITLE Vil. JUDGMENT > Rule 59. New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment
STANDARD OF REVIEW IN 2ND CIRCUIT
The Second Circuit has held that “{tJhe major grounds justifying reconsideration
are an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the
need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v.
Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)
#1 - CLEAR ERROR FOR COURTS TO ACT IN CONTEMPT OF SUPREME COURT
1. The Supreme Court's decisions in Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989) and Denton v. Hernandez (90-1846), 504 U.S. 25 (1992) require that any court
dismissing as “it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact” actually articulate inarguable
legal theory or fanciful or delusional facts. By failing to do so this court and the lower
court are in contempt of Supreme Court rulings.NEITZKE DISMISSAL REQUIRES LEGAL AND FACTUAL REVIEW
2. Neitzke in conjunction with Denton v. Hernandez (90-1846), 504 U.S. 25
(1992) require analysis of specific items found to be frivolous.
3. Categorization by the lower court as frivolous or dismissal by this court
absent any review based on 1915(e) that citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989) was incorrect.
DISMISSAL FOR LEGAL FRIVOLOUSNESS UNWARRANTED
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)
4. Neitzke finds something is not frivolous just by failing to state a claim and
that frivolous is when “[none] of the legal points [are] arguable on their merits.”
5. __Neitzke continues with “By logical extension, a complaint, containing as it
does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact. As the Courts of Appeals have recognized, §
1915(d)'s term “frivolous,” when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the
inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.”
6. Asneither the lower court nor this court addressed any legal argument
and neither the lower court nor this court addressed the factual allegations, it cannot be
shown that the court did any review, let alone the de minimus review, of the appeal.
DISMISSAL FOR FACTUAL FRIVOLOUSNESS UNWARRANTED
Denton v. Hernandez (90-1846), 504 U.S. 25 (1992).
7. Denton follows up on Neitzke:
“The issues in this case are the appropriate inquiry for determining when an in forma
pauperis litigant's factual allegations justify a 1915(d) dismissal for frivolousness, and
the proper standard of appellate review of such a dismissal.”8. Denton states court dismissal as frivolous is warranted “... if satisfied that
the action is frivolous or malicious.” It should go without saying that the court should
identify what makes an appeal frivolous or malicious. That de minimus review is not
present. Denton also states:
‘As we stated in Neitzke, a court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if
the facts alleged are “clearly baseless," 490 U. S., at 327, a category
encompassing allegations that are “fanciful,” id., at 325, “fantastic,” id., at 328,
and “delusional,” ibid. As those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness
is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the
wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to
contradict them. An in forma pauperis complaint may not be dismissed, however,
simply because the court finds the plaintiffs allegations unlikely. Some
improbable allegations might properly be disposed of on summary judgment, but
to dismiss them as frivolous without any factual development is to disregard the
age old insight that many allegations might be "strange, but true; for truth is
always strange, Stranger than fiction.” Lord Byron, Don Juan, canto XIV, stanza
101 (T. Steffan, E. Steffan & W. Pratt eds. 1977).
9. _Asthe court did not address any facts in the appeal, it is clear no analysis
of what were fanciful or delusional facts occurred.
INEVITABLE SANCTIONS
40. _ As this court has recently threatened appellant with sanctions for having
the temerity to point out errors by this court that this court has refused to address and
Appellant has pointed out even more errors by this court and the lower court and due
process is worth fighting for, Appellant knows "Well, that’s a a whippin | gotta take'.”
* WANTED Richard PryorCONCLUSION:
Itis clear error and manifest injustice that neither this court nor the lower court
did the required analysis of legal arguments and alleged facts required under the
‘Supreme Court cases Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) and its Supreme
Court sequel Denton v. Hernandez (90-1846), 504 U.S. 25 (1992)
Itis clear that the Supreme Court's citing of Lord Byron from Don Juan illustrates
how basic this is to due process, faimess and the American way in that its is obvious
with or without caselaw, constitution or statute.
WHEREFORE:
Movant respectfully requests that the court grant the instant motion to reconsider
the dismissal of appeals based on denial of in forma pauperis status by the lower court
and this court in contempt of Supreme Court rulings in that the decisions are absent
articulation of what was inarguable legal theory or fanciful or delusional facts in the
lower court or this court and for such other and ad 2 it deems just and proper.
Dated: March 18, 2016 ERIC'RICHMOND
Brooklyn, NY APPELLANT, PRO SE
2107 Regent Place
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(646) 256-9613,
gowanusx@gmail.com