Rivers v. Department of Corrections NYC
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-00120
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Rivers v. Department of Corrections NYC was dismissed after Keith Rivers failed to amend; Judge Swain denied appeal fee-waiver status.
Keith Rivers's complaint against the Department of Corrections NYC and the City of New York was dismissed; Rivers was also denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
What happened
In Rivers v. Department of Corrections NYC, the court had ordered Keith Rivers to file an amended complaint within 60 days and warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal. Rivers did not file an amended complaint or request more time.
The court dismissed the complaint under the federal statute governing screening of complaints filed without paying filing fees. It also declined to hear the state-law claims.
Judge Swain certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied fee-waiver status for an appeal, and directed the clerk to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Rivers v. Department of Corrections NYC · No. 1:24-cv-00120
- Laura Swain
- June 18, 2024
Background
Keith Rivers sued the Department of Corrections NYC and the City of New York. In an order dated April 15, 2024, the court directed Rivers to file an amended complaint within 60 days and stated that failure to comply would result in dismissal. Rivers did not file an amended complaint and did not request an extension of time.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which permits dismissal during review of a complaint filed without paying the filing fee when the statutory requirements for proceeding without that fee are not met. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning it chose not to hear the state-law claims after dismissing the federal complaint.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Rivers permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The clerk was directed to enter judgment. The opinion does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.