Hill v. The City of New York
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-09561
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Hill v. City of New York, Judge McMahon dismissed the complaint after Hill failed to amend it and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
Ronald Hill’s complaint was dismissed, and his state-law claims were not heard under supplemental jurisdiction. His permission to appeal without prepaying the filing fee was also denied.
What happened
In Hill v. The City of New York, the court had previously ordered Ronald Hill to file an amended complaint within 60 days and warned that failing to do so would lead to dismissal. Hill did not file an amended complaint.
The court dismissed the complaint under the federal statute governing screening of complaints filed without the required filing fee. It also declined to hear Hill’s state-law claims under its supplemental jurisdiction. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Hill permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Hill v. The City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-09561
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 15, 2020
Background
The court had ordered Ronald Hill on November 12, 2019, to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The order warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. Hill did not file an amended complaint. The complaint had been filed without prepaying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
Rulings
The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The opinion does not explain the underlying allegations or identify the specific claims addressed by that provision.
The court also declined under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over Hill’s state-law claims.
Chief United States District 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 Hill permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for purposes of an appeal. The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.