Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 1, 2025

Wright v. Bronx Criminal Court

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-02683
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Wright v. Bronx Criminal Court, Judge Swain dismissed this action without prejudice after directing its complaint into an earlier related case.

Who this affects

Marcus Wright, whose separate action was dismissed without prejudice while the complaint was transferred for filing in an earlier related case.

What happened

In Wright v. Bronx Criminal Court, Marcus Wright filed a complaint against the Bronx Criminal Court and other listed defendants. The court had previously dismissed an earlier related complaint while allowing Wright time to file an amended complaint.

The new complaint used the same defendants and said it was intended to refile the earlier case. The court therefore concluded that the complaint had been opened as a separate case by mistake.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the clerk to file the complaint as an amended complaint in the earlier related case and dismissed this action without prejudice. The court also denied Wright permission to appeal without paying the filing fee and directed entry of a civil judgment.

The detailed version

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

Case
Wright v. Bronx Criminal Court · No. 1:25-cv-02683
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Apr. 1, 2025

Background

Marcus Wright, who the opinion says was detained at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island, filed this action against the Bronx Criminal Court, the Department of Corrections, “Warden,” the Bronx Legal Aid Society, the Bronx Ryer Avenue Precinct, Susan Laurie Gans, and Michael Fineman. The opinion explains that Wright had previously filed an earlier related case, No. 24-CV-7923 (LTS), involving the alleged arrest on April 16, 2024, on charges of stealing clothing from a laundromat in Bronx County.

The court had dismissed the earlier complaint on January 6, 2025, while allowing 30 days to file an amended complaint. After Wright submitted letters stating that an amended-complaint form was unavailable, the court extended the filing deadline. On March 27, 2025, the court received a complaint naming the same defendants and opened it as this separate action. Wright wrote that the complaint concerned the earlier case and was intended to refile it.

Ruling

The court directed the clerk to file the complaint in this action as Wright’s amended complaint in the earlier related case. It dismissed this action without prejudice to Wright’s pursuing the claims in that earlier case. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. It directed the clerk to enter a civil judgment.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court resolved how the complaint should be docketed and dismissed this separate action without deciding the underlying allegations.

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.