Ruiz v. United States
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-07421
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ruiz v. United States, Judge Swain dismissed the action after Ruiz failed to amend, citing failure to state a claim and sovereign immunity.
The action brought by Angel L. Ruiz against the United States of America was dismissed, judgment was ordered, and Ruiz was denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.
What happened
In Ruiz v. United States, Angel L. Ruiz represented himself. The court had dismissed his original complaint but gave him 60 days to file an amended complaint. Ruiz instead filed a notice seeking an immediate appeal and did not file an amended complaint.
The court ruled that the appeal did not prevent it from acting because the appealed order was not final and had not been approved for an immediate appeal. It then dismissed the action for the reasons given in the earlier order: the complaint did not state a valid claim and sovereign immunity barred it.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and ended all other pending matters. The court also denied Ruiz permission to appeal without paying court fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Ruiz v. United States · No. 1:23-cv-07421
- Laura Swain
- June 24, 2024
Background
Angel L. Ruiz filed this action without a lawyer against the United States of America. On October 10, 2023, the court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim and because sovereign immunity barred the claims, but gave him 60 days to amend. The court warned that failing to amend would result in dismissal of the action.
On December 12, 2023, Ruiz filed a notice of interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory appeal seeks review before a case is fully resolved. Ruiz did not file an amended complaint.
Appeal and jurisdiction
The court held that the notice of appeal did not remove its authority to decide the case. The order Ruiz attempted to appeal was a dismissal with leave to amend, which was not a final order. The order also had not been certified for an interlocutory appeal. The court therefore treated the notice as premature and ineffective for removing the case from the district court.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action for the reasons stated in its October 10, 2023 order: failure to state a claim and sovereign immunity. The court cited 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii). It terminated all other pending matters and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.