Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 19, 2019

Moore v. Manhattan District Attorneys Office

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:19-cv-11602
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Section 1983Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Moore v. Manhattan District Attorneys Office, Judge McMahon dismissed the duplicate civil-rights case without prejudice to Moore’s pending case.

Who this affects

Moore’s duplicate lawsuit was dismissed, but the dismissal was without prejudice to his pending related case under docket number 1:19-CV-08940 (CM). The court also denied fee-free appeal status for this order.

What happened

Moore, who was incarcerated and representing himself, sued the Manhattan District Attorneys Office under a federal civil-rights law over his criminal proceedings in New York County. He had already filed a substantially similar case against the same defendant involving the same proceedings.

The court found that filing and litigating this duplicate case would serve no useful purpose. It directed that any changes to the claims be made in the pending case, if permitted by the federal rules.

In Moore v. Manhattan District Attorneys Office, Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed this complaint without prejudice to Moore’s pending case under docket number 1:19-CV-08940 (CM). The court also denied status allowing an appeal without paying the filing fee, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Moore v. Manhattan District Attorneys Office · No. 1:19-cv-11602
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Dec. 19, 2019

Background Moore, who was incarcerated at Mid-State Correctional Facility and proceeded without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. He asserted claims against the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office concerning his criminal proceedings in New York County.

The court noted that Moore had already filed a substantially similar complaint against the same defendant arising from the same criminal proceedings. That earlier related proceeding was pending before Judge McMahon under docket number 1:19-CV-08940 (CM). The opinion also noted that Moore had brought another prior action concerning the Manhattan District Attorney that had been dismissed as frivolous.

Ruling Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed this complaint as duplicative. The dismissal was without prejudice to Moore’s pending case under docket number 1:19-CV-08940 (CM). The court stated that, if Moore wanted to modify the claims asserted in that pending case, he could do so there to the extent permitted by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs amendments to pleadings.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail Moore a copy of the order and record service on the docket. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied status allowing an appeal without payment of the filing fee.

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.