Daniels v. The City of New York

Background

Marilyn Daniels filed this action without a lawyer. The court’s earlier order explained that she could not pursue claims purportedly brought under the False Claims Act on behalf of the United States without an attorney. The court gave her 30 days to hire an attorney or withdraw the action and warned that otherwise those claims would be dismissed without prejudice. The court also told her that she could bring any non-False Claims Act claims based on the same facts in a separate action.

The earlier order had lifted the usual seal on the order and future filings, while directing Daniels to refer to the defendants as “sealed defendants” until the case was fully unsealed. It also lifted the seal on Daniels’s identity and mailing address. Daniels later filed numerous submissions challenging that order.

Reconsideration request

The court treated Daniels’s submissions filed on May 22, May 30, and June 4, 2025, as one motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3. That rule requires a party to show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court explained that reconsideration is narrowly limited and cannot be used simply to repeat arguments or present new theories in response to an earlier ruling.

The court relied on controlling Second Circuit precedent holding that a person cannot pursue False Claims Act qui tam claims without a lawyer. Because Daniels continued pursuing those claims without an attorney after being given an opportunity to retain one or withdraw the action, the court denied reconsideration and dismissed the purported False Claims Act claims without prejudice.

Unsealing the case

The court concluded that the information Daniels provided did not fall within the False Claims Act provision requiring sealing. It therefore directed the Clerk of Court to completely unseal the action, make publicly available Daniels’s initial filings—including her complaint, notice and motion, application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs, and civil cover sheet—and remove other electronic-access restrictions on filings already docketed.

Transfer of remaining claims

The court understood Daniels to be asserting remaining claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, and possibly under state law. It found that a substantial part of the alleged events, including the seizure, towing, and impoundment of Daniels’s vehicle, occurred in Brooklyn, Kings County, which is within the Eastern District of New York. The court also noted that the vehicle might still be impounded there.

Applying the federal venue and transfer statutes, the court determined that the Eastern District of New York was a proper and more convenient venue for the remaining claims. It therefore transferred those claims to that court under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The transferee court would decide whether Daniels could continue without prepaying filing fees. The Southern District court stated that summonses would not issue from it, closed the action there, and directed the Clerk to terminate pending motions.

Disposition

Judge Swain denied the motion for reconsideration and all other pending requests included in it; dismissed the purported False Claims Act claims without prejudice; ordered the action and specified filings completely unsealed; lifted other electronic-access restrictions; and transferred the remaining federal and possible state-law claims to the Eastern District of New York. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.