Blanco v. HUD
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-02230
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Blanco v. HUD, Judge Swain dismissed Blanco’s blank, unsigned lawsuit as duplicative of her pending case.
Carlita Andrea Blanco and the named HUD-related defendant; the dismissal applied to this action, while Blanco’s related case was identified as pending.
What happened
In Blanco v. HUD, Carlita Andrea Blanco filed a lawsuit against “HUD – Unsolicited Research for Partnership Grant.” She represented herself.
The complaint contained only the caption and was blank and unsigned. The court noted that Blanco had filed a separate, signed complaint with factual allegations in a related case, No. 25-CV-2229 (LTS), against the same HUD-related defendant and other individuals.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed this action as duplicative, without prejudice to Blanco’s pending case. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing this action.
The detailed version
- Blanco v. HUD · No. 1:25-cv-02230
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 3, 2025
Background
Carlita Andrea Blanco brought this action without a lawyer against “HUD – Unsolicited Research for Partnership Grant.” The complaint contained only the caption; it was blank and unsigned.
The court noted that Blanco had previously submitted a separate complaint in a related proceeding, No. 25-CV-2229 (LTS). That complaint was signed and contained factual allegations. The court also noted that Blanco sued the defendant in this action in that related proceeding.
Ruling
The court concluded that there was no useful purpose in allowing this facially deficient action to proceed. It dismissed the complaint as duplicative of No. 25-CV-2229 (LTS), without prejudice to Blanco’s pending case. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing this action.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. This order did not rule on the factual or legal merits of the pending related case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.