Sowell v. Kelly
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-05354
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sowell v. Kelly, Judge Swain kept the case closed, requiring Randy Sowell to seek reconsideration and resubmit his complaint, while denying appeal fee status.
Randy Sowell; the case remains closed, and he was denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Sowell v. Kelly, the court had allowed Randy Sowell to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
After learning that Sowell had been transferred, the court ordered him to update his address and warned that the case could be dismissed if he did not. The order was returned as undeliverable after Sowell was released, so the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Sowell later said he had delivered a second amended complaint, but the Clerk’s Office had not received it.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain did not reopen the case. She said that, if Sowell wished to proceed, he must file a motion asking the court to reconsider and vacate the dismissal and civil judgment and must resubmit his second amended complaint. The court also denied him permission to appeal without paying filing fees, and stated that the case remains closed.
The detailed version
- Sowell v. Kelly · No. 1:23-cv-05354
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 4, 2025
Background
On October 16, 2023, the court granted Randy Sowell leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The opinion does not identify the claims in that complaint.
In January 2024, after learning from another pending case that Sowell had been transferred to a facility in New Jersey, the court ordered him to update his address in this case. The court warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk’s Office mailed the order to Cape May Correctional Facility, where public records indicated Sowell was detained. The mail was returned on February 23, 2024, because Sowell had been released and had not provided a forwarding address.
Prior dismissal and later letter
On February 26, 2024, the court dismissed Sowell’s complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk’s Office entered judgment on February 28, 2024. The dismissal and judgment were also returned as undeliverable.
On February 24, 2025, the court received a letter from Sowell stating that, in January 2024, he had hand-delivered a second amended complaint to “500 Pearl Street.” The court stated that it had not received that complaint because the Clerk’s Office never received the submission.
Ruling
The court did not reopen the action or decide the underlying claims. Instead, it stated that, if Sowell wished to proceed, he must do both of the following: (1) file a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b), asking the court to vacate the dismissal order and civil judgment and reopen the action; and (2) resubmit his second amended complaint.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied in forma pauperis status, meaning permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The court stated that the case remains closed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.