Manchanda v. Attorney Grievance Committee 1st Department
- James Oetken
- 1:25-cv-03935
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Manchanda v. Attorney Grievance Committee 1st Department, Judge Swain denied Manchanda’s filing request, leaving the case closed.
Rahul Dev Manchanda, who was proceeding without a lawyer; the Attorney Grievance Committee 1st Department, NYS Supreme Court, and Appellate Division 1st Department; and the status of this case, which remains closed.
What happened
In Manchanda v. Attorney Grievance Committee 1st Department, Rahul Dev Manchanda filed the case without a lawyer against the Attorney Grievance Committee 1st Department, NYS Supreme Court, and Appellate Division 1st Department.
The court had previously dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Manchanda did not follow an injunction issued in a prior related proceeding. He then filed a document asking for permission to file.
The court denied that application because it did not list every earlier lawsuit against any defendant or provide copies of those complaints and certified records showing how they ended. The case remains closed, and Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied permission to proceed without paying court fees for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Manchanda v. Attorney Grievance Committee 1st Department · No. 1:25-cv-03935
- James Oetken
- May 28, 2025
Background
Rahul Dev Manchanda filed this action without a lawyer against the Attorney Grievance Committee 1st Department, NYS Supreme Court, and Appellate Division 1st Department. On May 16, 2025, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 because Manchanda had not complied with an injunction issued in a prior related proceeding.
On May 19, 2025, Manchanda filed a document titled “Response to Order of Dismissal without Prejudice with Motion Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to file.” The filing sought permission to file, but the opinion does not describe a separate proposed complaint or identify any additional relief requested.
Court’s ruling
The court denied Manchanda’s application for leave to file. The injunction required him to identify, by listing the full caption, every lawsuit he had previously brought in any New York state or federal court against any defendant in the suit he wanted to file or remove. It also required him to provide a copy of each earlier complaint and a certified record showing its disposition. The court found that Manchanda’s application did not satisfy either requirement.
The court stated that the case remains closed. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied permission to proceed without paying court fees for purposes of an appeal.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court denied permission to file based on noncompliance with a filing injunction, without deciding the underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.