Keita v. IBM et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying 9 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,444-45, 82 S. Ct. 917, 920-21, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962). Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 11/30/2017. (Williams, Erica)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MOHAMMED KEITA,

Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER

-against17-CV-1276

IBM,also known as Lenove, VERIZON,
MICROSOFT, APPLE,GOOGLE,NASA,

SAMSUNG,BMW MANHATTAN,HP,CNN,
MSCNBC,CBS,CHANEL 7,EYEWITNESS
NEWS OF NEW YORK,and UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendants.

VITALIANO,D.J.

On October 26,2017,/7ro se plaintiff Mohammed Keita's complaint was dismissed withj
prejudice as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Clerk of Court was ordered to close
the case. Notwithstanding the dismissal, Keita filed an amended complaint and supporting
memorandum oflaw on November 9,2017. He argues that, at least as amended, his complaint
had complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

Interpreting his latest pleadings liberally, the Court construes the latest filing(ECF Dkt.
No.9)as a motion for reconsideration. The motion, however, must be denied because Keita
makes no showing of any misapprehension by the Court of facts or law at the time ofits ruling

which would require the Court to revisit its prior decisions. See Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70!
F.3d255,257(2d Cir. 1995).

In any event, even ifthe Court were to consider Keita's proposed "amended complaint",
without the baggage of a prior dismissal, what passes for factual content is fanciful at best but
essentially baseless. Neitzke v. Williams,490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1833,104 L.Ed.2c

338(1989). For instance, Keita makes stream of consciousness statements like "I am interested

in the field of NASA Astrobiology combined MS/Phd Program as Professional Studies Student,tt
ECF Dkt. No.9 at 7,K 5. Or, another:"During a midnight United State Supreme judicial

briefing that included Justice Clarance [sic] Thomas and Justice Anthony Scalia (deceased), had
an unusual terrestrial information communicated by Justice Scalia on CNN,T told them not to

touch it!". Id. at 10,1 8. There is absolutely nothing in the "amended complaint" that even

vaguely hints at a valid claim against any ofthe named defendants. There is, in short, nothing in
Keita's most recent pleading that would justify reconsidering the original order dismissing the
complaint with prejudice.

The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal would not be

taken in good faith, and, therefore, informa pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any

appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,444-45, 82 S. Ct. 917,920-21,8 L. Ed. 2d
21 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain this case on the closed docket

So Ordered.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
November 30, 2017

s/Eric N. Vitaliano
eRic n. vitauano
United States District Judge