Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 28, 2025

Johnson-El v. James

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-07013
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

Judge Swain dismissed Johnson-El v. James as duplicative without prejudice and denied fee-free status for any appeal.

Who this affects

Jeremiah Johnson-El’s duplicate lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice to his pending related case. The ruling also denied him fee-free status for an appeal.

What happened

In Johnson-El v. James, Jeremiah Johnson-El, representing himself, filed a pleading that the court described as removing a matter from Warwick Town Hall Court in Orange County, New York.

Because Johnson-El had already filed the identical pleading in a pending case, the court dismissed this duplicate lawsuit without prejudice to that pending case. The court also said that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the dismissal and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Johnson-El v. James · No. 1:24-cv-07013
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Feb. 28, 2025

Background

Jeremiah Johnson-El, who was representing himself, filed an action that purported to remove a matter from the Warwick Town Hall Court in Orange County, New York. The defendants are identified as James, also known as Jim Obrotka, and the Warwick Town Hall Court and Buildings Department.

Reason for Dismissal

The court stated that Johnson-El had previously submitted the identical pleading in an earlier related proceeding, which remained pending under docket number 24-CV-3726. Because the new pleading raised the same claims, the court concluded that litigating the duplicate lawsuit would serve no useful purpose. It dismissed the pleading without prejudice to Johnson-El’s pending case.

Additional Rulings

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. It also directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in this case. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.