Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 30, 2020

Arco v. Reason, Logic & Law

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-08726
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

The People d/b/a Johnny Arco v. Scott M. Rudes was dismissed as duplicative, Judge McMahon ruled, without reaching the claims.

Who this affects

The plaintiff's duplicate complaint was dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiff's separately pending case. The defendants were affected by the dismissal of this duplicate action.

What happened

In The People d/b/a Johnny Arco v. Scott M. Rudes, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Scott M. Rudes and other defendants. The plaintiff was representing himself.

The court said the plaintiff had already filed an identical lawsuit against the defendants. That earlier case was pending before Judge Louis L. Stanton under docket number 1:20-CV-8630.

Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed this complaint without prejudice to the pending case because litigating the duplicate lawsuit would serve no useful purpose. The court also denied the plaintiff permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Arco v. Reason, Logic & Law · No. 1:20-cv-08726
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Nov. 30, 2020

Background

The plaintiff brought the action without a lawyer. The opinion states that the plaintiff had previously submitted an identical complaint against the defendants. That earlier case was pending before Judge Louis L. Stanton under docket number 1:20-CV-8630.

Ruling

The court dismissed the complaint as duplicative, stating that the complaint raised the same claims as the pending case and that no useful purpose would be served by litigating the duplicate lawsuit. The dismissal was without prejudice to the plaintiff's pending case.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to the plaintiff and record service on the docket. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiff permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.