Crandell v. Department of Corrections and Community Supervison
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-09624
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Crandell v. Department of Corrections and Community Supervison, Judge McMahon dismissed federal claims and declined state-law claims after no amended complaint.
The dismissal ended Plaintiff's action: the federal-law claims were dismissed, and the court declined to consider the state-law claims. The court also denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Crandell v. Department of Corrections and Community Supervison, the court had allowed Corey Crandell, also known as Dennis Sharma, to file an amended complaint within 60 days.
Crandell did not file an amended complaint. The court had warned that failing to do so would lead to dismissal of the federal claims and that it would decline to consider the state-law claims.
Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action. She dismissed the federal-law claims as frivolous, for failure to state a claim for relief, and for seeking money from an immune defendant. She declined to consider the state-law claims and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Crandell v. Department of Corrections and Community Supervison · No. 1:19-cv-09624
- Colleen McMahon
- Mar. 2, 2020
Background
In an earlier order dated December 13, 2019, the court gave Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. That order warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. It stated that the court would dismiss the federal-law claims as frivolous, for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, and for seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from that relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii), and (iii). It also stated that the court would decline to consider the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action. It dismissed Plaintiff's federal-law claims as frivolous, for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, and for seeking monetary relief from an immune defendant. The court declined to consider Plaintiff's state-law claims.
The court directed the Clerk to mail the order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.