Evans v. New York City Human Resources Administration
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-05684
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Judge McMahon dismissed Evans v. New York City Human Resources Administration after Evans failed to amend the complaint as ordered and declined state-law jurisdiction.
Jenal Evans, whose complaint was dismissed after Evans did not file the required amended complaint; any state-law claims were not considered by the federal court.
What happened
In Jenal Evans v. New York City Human Resources Administration, the court had ordered Evans to file an amended complaint within 60 days and warned that failing to do so would lead to dismissal.
Evans did not file an amended complaint. The opinion does not identify the claims in the original complaint.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint and declined to consider any related state-law claims. The court also denied Evans permission to appeal without paying the filing fee, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Evans v. New York City Human Resources Administration · No. 1:19-cv-05684
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 27, 2019
Background
On October 23, 2019, the court ordered Jenal Evans to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The order warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. Evans did not file an amended complaint.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The opinion states that the complaint had been filed without prepaying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The court also declined under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear, over any state-law claims.
Other Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Evans and record service on the docket. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied permission to appeal without prepaying the filing fee. The opinion does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice and does not identify the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.