Harvey v. Rhoades
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-07921
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Harvey v. Rhoades, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice, denied the stay request as moot, and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
The order affected Lamar R. Harvey’s complaint by dismissing it without prejudice and denying his request for a stay and permission to appeal without prepaying fees. It did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
What happened
In Harvey v. Rhoades, Lamar R. Harvey, who was detained at Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, filed the case without a lawyer. The opinion does not say whether his detention resulted from pending criminal charges.
The court had ordered Harvey to either submit a prisoner authorization or pay the required filing fees if he was detained because of pending criminal charges. If he was not facing such charges, he had to tell the court. Harvey did neither, instead sending letters asking for a temporary stay and permission to pause the case.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning Harvey may file it again later. She denied the request for a stay as moot, denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, and directed the clerk to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Harvey v. Rhoades · No. 1:24-cv-07921
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 13, 2025
Background
Lamar R. Harvey brought the action without a lawyer while detained at Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Hospital. The complaint did not state whether his detention was based on pending criminal charges.
On October 24, 2024, the court ordered Harvey to take one of two steps within 30 days if he was detained because of pending criminal charges: submit a completed prisoner authorization or pay the $405 filing fees required to bring a civil action in the court. The order stated that, if he was not facing pending criminal charges, he had to say so in a response to the court. The order warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal.
On December 2, 2024, the court received two letters from Harvey requesting a “temporary stay” and “leave” of the action. He did not submit the prisoner authorization, pay the filing fees, or state that he was not detained because of pending criminal charges.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal does not bar Harvey from refiling the action later. The court also denied Harvey’s request for a stay as moot, meaning the request no longer required a ruling because the case was being dismissed.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Harvey permission to appeal without prepaying the required fees. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment.
Effect of the Order
The order ended this action based on Harvey’s failure to comply with the court’s filing-fee or status-reporting directive. The opinion does not decide the underlying allegations against Frederrick Rhoades, Dr. Lindsay Jordan, Dr. Grier, Matthew Shatzell, or OMH.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.