Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 9, 2025

Nickelson v. NYPD 40th Precinct

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-04711
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil RightsSection 1983Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Nickelson v. NYPD 40th Precinct, Judge Swain dismissed a duplicate civil-rights complaint without prejudice to pursuing the earlier case.

Who this affects

Darrell Wendell Nickelson is affected by the dismissal of this duplicate lawsuit, the waiver of its filing fee, and the denial of permission to proceed without fees on appeal. The defendants are affected because this action is closed, while the earlier related proceeding remains available for litigation.

What happened

In Nickelson v. NYPD 40th Precinct, Darrell Wendell Nickelson, who was in pretrial detention on Rikers Island, filed a self-represented civil-rights lawsuit alleging that the defendants falsely arrested him on October 31, 2024.

The court found that the complaint raised the same claims as an earlier related case, so it dismissed this duplicate lawsuit without prejudice to Nickelson’s litigation of that earlier case. The court said he could seek to amend the complaint in the earlier case as allowed by the federal rules.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also directed the Clerk not to charge the filing fee for this lawsuit and ordered that no money be deducted from Nickelson’s prison trust account for it. The court denied permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal, directed entry of a civil judgment, and closed this action.

The detailed version

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

Case
Nickelson v. NYPD 40th Precinct · No. 1:25-cv-04711
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
June 9, 2025

Background

Darrell Wendell Nickelson, who was in pretrial detention on Rikers Island, filed this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants falsely arrested him on October 31, 2024.

Nickelson had previously filed a substantially similar complaint against the defendants in an earlier related proceeding, No. 25-CV-3847. That proceeding was initially filed in the Eastern District of New York and was transferred to the Southern District of New York on May 8, 2025. On May 15, 2025, this court granted Nickelson permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Ruling

The court concluded that this complaint raised the same claims as the earlier related proceeding and that filing and litigating a duplicate lawsuit would serve no useful purpose. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice to Nickelson’s litigation of the earlier proceeding. The court stated that, if Nickelson wished to amend the complaint in that proceeding, he could do so as permitted by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court directed the Clerk of Court not to charge Nickelson the $350 filing fee for this action. It also directed the person responsible for his custody not to deduct or encumber funds from his prison trust account for this lawsuit. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to enter a civil judgment.

Effect of the Order

This order ended No. 25-CV-4711, but the dismissal was without prejudice to litigation of the earlier related proceeding. The opinion does not decide whether Nickelson was falsely arrested or otherwise resolve the merits of those 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.