Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 8, 2020

Linares v. Annucci

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:19-cv-11113
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Linares v. Annucci, Judge McMahon dismissed a duplicate civil-rights complaint without prejudice and waived its filing fee.

Who this affects

Jorge L. Linares's duplicate lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice; the defendants were not required to litigate this duplicate action. Linares was not charged this action's filing fee, and funds were not to be taken or held from his prison account for it.

What happened

Linares v. Annucci involved Jorge L. Linares, who filed a self-represented lawsuit claiming that the defendants violated his constitutional rights under a federal civil-rights law. The court found that he had already filed an identical complaint against the same defendants, and that earlier action was still pending under docket number 19-CV-11120 (CS).

The court dismissed this action without prejudice to the pending earlier action because litigating a duplicate complaint would serve no useful purpose. The court also directed that Linares not be charged the filing fee for this case and that no money be taken or held from his prison account for it.

Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the dismissal and ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying permission to appeal without paying the required fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
Linares v. Annucci · No. 1:19-cv-11113
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Jan. 8, 2020

Background

Jorge L. Linares, who was incarcerated in Otisville Correctional Facility and represented himself, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims that state officials violated constitutional rights. The complaint named Anthony Annucci, Tina M. Stanford, and commissioners of the New York State Board of Parole as defendants.

The court stated that Linares had previously filed an identical complaint against the same defendants asserting the same claims. That earlier action remained pending before another judge of the same court under docket number 19-CV-11120 (CS).

Ruling

The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice to Linares's pending action under docket number 19-CV-11120 (CS). The court reasoned that no useful purpose would be served by filing and litigating a duplicate complaint. The dismissal resolved this duplicate action without deciding whether the underlying constitutional claims were valid.

Because the court believed Linares might have filed the duplicate complaint by mistake, it directed the Clerk of Court not to charge him the $350 filing fee for this action. It also directed the official holding his funds not to deduct or hold money from his prison trust-fund account for this action.

Judge Colleen McMahon certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the required fees.

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.