Sowell v. Annucci
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-06538
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Sowell v. Annucci and Sowell v. Kelly, Judge Swain denied reconsideration because Sowell’s duplicate pleadings improperly combined unrelated claims.
Randy Sowell’s two civil actions and his request to reopen them were affected. He may start a new civil action, but the order bars him from joining unrelated claims in one case and denies permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
Sowell v. Annucci and Sowell v. Kelly are two cases in which Randy Sowell, representing himself, asked the court to reopen the actions and consider the same second amended complaint. The first case involved claims concerning parole, parole revocation, and detention; the second case had been dismissed after court orders were returned as undeliverable.
The court found that Sowell’s filings did not comply with earlier orders. He submitted identical complaints in both cases, attempted to bring claims from several locations and years together, and did not clearly identify which claims belonged in which case. The court also found no grounds under the rule allowing relief from a judgment or order.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied both motions for reconsideration. The denial was without prejudice to Sowell starting a new civil action, but the court warned that unrelated claims may not be joined in one case. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Sowell v. Annucci · No. 1:22-cv-06538
- Laura Swain
- May 19, 2025
Background
Randy Sowell filed both actions without a lawyer. In the first action, Sowell v. Annucci, he initially raised claims concerning refusal to discharge him from parole, parole revocation, and alleged detentions under parole warrants. The court dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim and because some defendants were immune from liability, while allowing him time to file a second amended complaint. After Sowell did not file that pleading, the court dismissed the action on April 15, 2024, for the reasons stated in its earlier dismissal order.
The second action, Sowell v. Kelly, was opened when the court separated claims from the first action. After granting Sowell permission to proceed without paying the filing fee and allowing him to amend, the court dismissed that action without prejudice on February 26, 2024, after several court orders were returned as undeliverable.
Sowell later filed the same motion for reconsideration and the same second amended complaint in both actions. He sought to reopen the cases and proceed with the amended pleading.
Court’s analysis
The court treated the motion as a request for relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule allows relief for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, or other exceptional circumstances. The court concluded that Sowell had not shown that any of the first five listed grounds applied.
The court also considered the rule’s provision for other reasons justifying relief. It held that Sowell had not shown the exceptional circumstances required for relief under that provision. The court identified several problems with the proposed pleadings: they were exact duplicates submitted in separate actions; they appeared to assert claims arising from 2019 through the present in New York County, Bronx County, Queens County, and New Jersey; and they did not make clear which claims belonged in either existing action or were unrelated to both. The court reiterated that unrelated claims may not be joined in one civil action.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion for reconsideration in the 22-CV-6538 matter and denied the motion for reconsideration in the 23-CV-5354 matter. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all motions in the two actions. The denials were without prejudice to Sowell initiating a new civil action based on his contention that violations of his rights are ongoing. The court warned that unrelated claims may not be joined in one action.
The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.