Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 20, 2025

Angelino v. NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-07907
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Angelino v. NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Judge Swain amended the dismissal without prejudice and denied electronic-filing and fee-free appeal status.

Who this affects

Eli Angelino’s federal action was dismissed without prejudice, meaning the order did not bar refiling. The NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene remained the named defendant, and the Court denied Angelino’s requests for electronic-filing permission in this closed action and fee-free status for an appeal.

What happened

In Angelino v. NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Eli Angelino brought claims about the delayed registration of his birth in New York. The Court had dismissed his complaint on May 27, 2025, after concluding that earlier state-court litigation prevented him from retrying certain issues, but allowed him 30 days to clarify his allegations.

Angelino asked to withdraw the case without prejudice or keep it open while his state-court proceedings continued. He also filed a notice of voluntary dismissal and requested permission to participate in electronic filing.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain treated Angelino’s filing as a request to change the earlier order, granted reconsideration, and amended the dismissal so the action was dismissed without prejudice. The notice of voluntary dismissal was moot, the electronic-filing request was denied because the action was closed, and fee-free status for an appeal was denied.

The detailed version

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

Case
Angelino v. NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene · No. 1:24-cv-07907
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
June 20, 2025

Background

Eli Angelino filed this action without a lawyer, asserting claims about the “delayed” registration of his birth in New York. On May 27, 2025, the Court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the statute requiring screening and dismissal of certain claims filed by people proceeding without a lawyer or without paying the filing fee. The Court held, among other things, that issue preclusion barred Angelino from relitigating issues already resolved against him in earlier state-court litigation. The Court granted him 30 days to replead and clarify his allegations.

On May 29, 2025, Angelino filed a declaration stating that his state-court proceedings were ongoing. He asked to voluntarily withdraw this action without prejudice to refiling, or alternatively to keep the action open until those proceedings ended. He also filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). In addition, he requested permission to participate in electronic case filing.

Rulings

The Court liberally construed Angelino’s declaration as a motion for relief from the earlier dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The Court granted the motion for reconsideration and modified the May 27 dismissal order so that this action was dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment dismissing the action without prejudice.

Because Angelino’s notice of voluntary dismissal was filed after the Court had already dismissed the action, the Court held that notice moot. The Court denied Angelino’s motion for permission to participate in electronic case filing because the action was closed, while noting that he could renew that request in a new federal action. The Court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.