Banks v. McLaughlin
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-04127
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In UQUINN BANKS v. MCLAUGHLIN, Judge McMahon dismissed the unamended civil-rights complaint for failure to state a claim.
UQUINN BANKS, whose complaint was dismissed after he did not file an amended complaint; the defendants named in the action were also affected by the dismissal.
What happened
UQUINN BANKS v. JUDGE EDWARD J. MCLAUGHLIN, ET AL. began as a petition challenging a criminal case and seeking damages from people and entities connected to those proceedings, including a judge, attorneys, correctional facilities, and a police precinct.
The court gave UQUINN BANKS permission and additional time to file an amended complaint, warning that the case would be dismissed if he did not do so. He never filed an amended complaint, so the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and declined to decide any related state-law claims.
Judge Colleen McMahon also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The order was dated November 21, 2019.
The detailed version
- Banks v. McLaughlin · No. 1:19-cv-04127
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 21, 2019
Background
UQUINN BANKS began the action in the Northern District of New York as a petition seeking a court order concerning his criminal proceedings. He sought damages and named defendants connected with those proceedings, including the presiding judge, prosecuting and defense attorneys, correctional facilities, and a police precinct. The action was recharacterized as a civil-rights action. The opinion states both that Banks paid the $400 filing fee and that the complaint was filed under the statute allowing a person to proceed without paying the filing fee; the opinion does not explain that apparent inconsistency.
The action was transferred to the Southern District of New York because Banks asserted claims arising there. The court stated that claims arising in the Northern District of New York were barred by immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.
Failure to Amend
On July 8, 2019, the court granted Banks permission to file an amended complaint within 60 days and warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. Banks repeatedly requested more time, partly because he had a pending motion under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 challenging his conviction. The court told him that motion was not good cause for another extension but nevertheless extended the deadline. The court also warned that it would grant no further extensions and that failure to amend would result in dismissal.
Banks did not file an amended complaint.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires dismissal at the screening stage when a complaint fails to state a legally sufficient claim. The court also declined under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority over, any state-law claims Banks was asserting.
Judge Colleen McMahon directed the Clerk of Court to mail Banks a copy of the order and record service on the docket. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.