Zuleta v. Krom
- Nelson Roman
- 7:24-cv-02696
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Zuleta v. Krom, Judge Román dismissed without prejudice the duplicative action after the plaintiff failed to respond.
The dismissal affected Hector Munoz-Zuleta’s second action against J. Krom, P. Page-Cannonier, and M. Gusman. The opinion does not describe a separate ruling on the earlier action.
What happened
In Zuleta v. Krom, Hector Munoz-Zuleta, who was representing himself, sued J. Krom, P. Page-Cannonier, and M. Gusman over alleged indifference to his medical needs. He brought claims under federal civil-rights laws.
Munoz-Zuleta had already filed an earlier case against the same defendants based on the same claims and facts. The court ordered him to explain why this second case should not be dismissed as duplicative, but he did not respond by the deadline.
Judge Nelson S. Román dismissed the second case without prejudice as duplicative of the earlier case. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate this action and mail the order to Munoz-Zuleta.
The detailed version
- Zuleta v. Krom · No. 7:24-cv-02696
- Nelson Roman
- Nov. 19, 2024
Background
Hector Munoz-Zuleta, representing himself, sued J. Krom, P. Page-Cannonier, and M. Gusman. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, alleging that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. The opinion refers to this action as the second case, or “Zuleta II.”
Earlier and Second Actions
Munoz-Zuleta had previously filed an action against the same defendants based on alleged deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The court stated that the complaints in the two actions contained identical claims and factual allegations. On August 29, 2024, the court ordered Munoz-Zuleta to explain by September 26 why the second action should not be dismissed as duplicative. He did not respond to that order.
Ruling
Judge Nelson S. Román dismissed Zuleta II without prejudice as duplicative of the earlier action. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the action, mail a copy of the order to Munoz-Zuleta, and record service on the docket. The opinion did not decide the merits of the allegations about the defendants’ treatment of Munoz-Zuleta’s medical needs.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.