Arnold v. Powles
- Laura Swain
- 1:26-cv-05812
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Johnathan Arnold v. Dillion Powles, Judge Swain dismissed Arnold’s complaint without prejudice as duplicative of another pending action.
Johnathan Arnold’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice. The court also denied him fee-free status for an appeal; the defendants were parties to the dismissed action.
What happened
In Johnathan Arnold v. Dillion Powles, Johnathan Arnold brought a complaint in the Southern District of New York. The court said the complaint duplicated an action pending under docket number 26-CV-5724.
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar a new filing. The opinion states that the reasons for dismissal were explained in a July 4, 2026, order, which is not included here.
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Arnold fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Arnold v. Powles · No. 1:26-cv-05812
- Laura Swain
- July 20, 2026
Background
Johnathan Arnold filed a complaint against Dillion Powles and other defendants. The court stated that the complaint duplicated an action pending under docket number 26-CV-5724. The court relied on the reasons stated in its July 4, 2026, order; that order is not included in the provided text.
Ruling
The court dismissed Arnold’s complaint without prejudice as duplicative of the other pending action. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal itself does not bar a new filing.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Arnold in forma pauperis status—that is, permission to proceed without paying required court fees—for purposes of an appeal.
Judge and Disposition
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered the civil judgment on July 20, 2026. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and fee-free status for an appeal was denied.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.