Perry v. Vega
- Rearden
- 1:24-cv-00389
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Perry v. Vega, Judge Rearden granted Perry’s request to withdraw and dismissed the action without prejudice because his claims proceeded in another case.
The dismissal ended Kahreem Perry’s action against Police Officer Steven Vega without prejudice; the opinion states that further litigation related to Perry’s October 2021 arrest would proceed in another pending case.
What happened
In Perry v. Vega, Kahreem Perry filed a second amended complaint in another pending case that included the claims from this action.
The court understood that filing as Perry’s request to withdraw this case. It also noted that further litigation concerning Perry’s October 2021 arrest would proceed in the other case.
Judge Rearden granted the withdrawal request and dismissed this action without prejudice under Rule 41(a). She also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Perry v. Vega · No. 1:24-cv-00389
- Rearden
- July 11, 2024
Background
Kahreem Perry sued Police Officer Steven Vega in this action. On June 11, 2024, Perry filed a second amended complaint in another pending action, Perry v. Vega, No. 22 Civ. 5813 (JHR) (SN). That filing pursued the claims from this action along with other claims. The court also cited a filing in the other action stating that the second amended complaint consolidated this case with two other cases and that further litigation related to Perry’s October 2021 arrest would proceed there.
Court’s Ruling
The court understood Perry’s filing in the other action as a request to withdraw this case. It granted that request and dismissed this action without prejudice under Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the required filing fees.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.