Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 17, 2024

Phelps v. Superintendent

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:20-cv-10352
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Phelps v. Superintendent, Judge Failla warned that continued filings could lead to a litigation ban but did not impose one.

Who this affects

Darryl Phelps and any future filings he makes in this action.

What happened

In Phelps v. Superintendent, the court said the case was closed and that it could not provide Darryl Phelps assistance or relief concerning his current incarceration or the charges underlying it. The court was still receiving letters from him.

The court warned that future filings connected to this case could result in a filing ban. It said that if Phelps continued filing letters, it would consider an order barring further litigation in this case to prevent what it described as vexatious litigation.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla did not impose a filing ban in this order. She directed the Clerk of Court to send Phelps a copy of the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Phelps v. Superintendent · No. 1:20-cv-10352
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
June 17, 2024

Background

The court stated that this case was closed and that it could not provide Darryl Phelps with assistance or relief concerning his current incarceration or the charges underlying it. Despite earlier notices on the docket, the court continued to receive letters from Phelps.

Warning About Future Filings

The court warned Phelps that future submissions connected to this action would be met with a filing ban. It explained that, if he continued filing letters on the docket, it would enter an order under the All Writs Act—a federal law allowing courts to issue orders necessary to protect their judgments and prevent abusive litigation—to bar further vexatious litigation. The court cited precedent stating that a filing injunction cannot be imposed without notice and an opportunity for the litigant to be heard.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Polk Failla did not impose a filing ban in this order. Instead, the order warned that one could be entered if Phelps continued filing letters in the action. The Clerk of Court was directed to send Phelps a copy of the order at the address listed in the opinion.

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.